15 December 2017
Home Page About Us Services Publications Links
VIEWS
TACY'S MEMO
Opinion
Analysis
NEWS
Mining & Exploration
Rough Trade
Polished Wholesale & Manufacturing
Retail
Governmental
Labs & Trade and Industry Bodies
Branding & Marketing
Legal
Financial
Diamond Pipeline
Statistics
ARCHIVE NEWS - PRE 2008
People
Regional Issues
Created Diamonds
Civil Society
Ethics
Development Issues
Conflict Diamonds
Auctions
Kimberley Process
DIAMOND INTELLIGENCE BRIEFS
Diamond Intelligence Briefing 2017
Diamond Intelligence Briefing 2016
Diamond Intelligence Briefing 2015
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2015
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2014
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2013
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2012
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2011
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2010
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2009
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2008
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2007
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2006
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2005
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2004
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2003
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2002
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2001
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2000
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1999
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1998
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1997
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1996
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1995
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1994
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1993
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1992
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1991
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1990
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1989
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1988
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1987
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1986
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1985
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1984
TACY RESEARCH
Tacy's Reports
Tacy's Research
Tacy's Presentations
RESOURCE LIBRARY
Company Reports
Kimberley Process
NGO Reports
Government Reports
Conflict Diamonds
Producer Marketing Documentation
Trade Organization Guidance
Supplier of Choice
Legal Issues
LEGAL
Laws and Regulations
Court Documents
Anti-Money Laundering
Best Practice Principles
Compliance
Competition
Banking
FINANCE
Basel II
Compliance
Decisions
PICTURES
Botswana
De Beers Archive Pictures
Conference Photos
India
Zimbabwe
SITE MAP
MY ARTICLES
created by CyberServe
 Email this      Printer-Friendly Format    
TIFFANY AWARDED $19M IN DAMAGES; COSTCO PLANNING TO APPEAL
20 August 2017
Following the September 2015 summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granting luxury jeweler Tiffany & Co.'s (Tiffany) motion against Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco), a federal district court judge has reportedly ordered Costco to pay Tiffany more than US$19 million for selling generic diamond engagement rings that were marketed using Tiffany's name.

In the suit filed by Tiffany's in February 2013, the company accused Costco of selling counterfeit diamond engagement rings bearing the Tiffany brand name. The Court denied Costco's claim that "Tiffany" is a generic term for a pronged ring and further found that Costco was liable for trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting in its use of "Tiffany" on signs in the jewelry cases at Costco to describe certain engagement rings that were not made by Tiffany & Co.

According to media reports, a judge ruled last week that Tiffany is entitled to US$11.1 million as profits for trademark infringement, plus interest, and US$8.25 million in punitive damages, which was awarded by a jury in October last year.

In response to the latest ruling, Costco issued a statement noting that, "Costco respectfully submits that the ruling is a product of multiple errors in pretrial, trial, and post-trial rulings and intends to appeal."
   Back»