Menu

Inwood

0 Comment

Inwood: Why eBay was not held liable for the infringing sales made by users Why eBay was not held liable for the infringing sales made by usersWhile e-commerce has contributed to the immense increase in trade globally, it has also come with its challenges which has minimized its rapid growth. One of the major challenges faced by internet commerce is the increased sales of counterfeits goods through online auctions. A major example was the case where Tiffany, a high quality jeweler, claimed that the eBay auction house was illegally allowing sales of counterfeits branded as Tiffany products vial its website. While it was true that infringement of trademark was taking place on eBay website, the court did not hold eBay liable for the infringement. The judge decided the case on a number of reasons as discussed below. One of the major reasons why the online auction house was not held liable was because the claim made by Tiffany, under Inwood, lacked sufficient evidence to suggest that eBay was aware of the infringement of the trademark made by some users on its website (Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, 1982). The eBay website is used by millions of sellers and it is not possible to identify which of the users were breaking the rule if the users did not include such words as pirated or counterfeit in their listing. Another reason was that the court did not find eBay to be ‘willful blind’ to the evidence found on its website (Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 2010). Whenever eBay was informed via notice of claim of infringement (NOCI) of the suspected cases of counterfeit sales on its website, they took appropriate actions i.e. they deleted the suspected listings using Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) program and also suspended the sellers involved. They also refunded all the money related to those particular transactions, a measure that impressed the judge. eBay also included special warnings that notifies the sellers to ensure that the products they are selling are genuine and also reminded them of the eBay counterfeiting policies. In addition, eBay provided a link to the Tiffany About Me page. Basing his judgment on the points heighted above, the judge of the U.S district court concluded that eBay had taken great measures to combat counterfeiting and therefore cannot be held liable for the infringement of the trademark (Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 2010).ReferencesTiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2010). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7620716488025661377Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 US 844 (1982). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5946191720195736097amp.hl=enamp.as_sdt=2,5