Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 SEPTEMBER 2015

The Survey Says: TIFFANY Is Not Generic For A Ring Setting

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

Last week, the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to Tiffany & Co. on its trademark infringement claim against Costco Wholesale Corporation for selling rings advertised under the TIFFANY mark.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Last week, the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to Tiffany & Co. on its trademark infringement claim against Costco Wholesale Corporation for selling rings advertised under the TIFFANY mark. Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01041 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015).

Tiffany had sued Costco after learning that it was displaying rings next to signs reading "Platinum Tiffany .70 VS2" and "Platinum Tiffany VS2.1." Costco counterclaimed, asserting that "Tiffany" is a generic term for a type of ring setting. Costco also raised fair use as an affirmative defense.

Tiffany unsuccessfully filed an early summary judgment motion on Costco's genericness counterclaim. The court denied that motion, holding that factual disputes existed as to the meaning of the terms "Tiffany" and "Tiffany setting" in the minds of the general public.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from