Breakfast at Tiffany's': eBay Inc., trade mark law, and counterfeiting

In an exploration of intellectual property and fashion, this article examines the question of the intermediary liability of online auction-houses for counterfeiting. In the United States, the illustrious jewellery store, Tiffany & Co, brought a legal action against eBay Inc, alleging direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and trademark dilution. The luxury store depicted the online auction-house as a pirate bazaar, a flea-market and a haven for counterfeiting. During epic litigation, eBay Inc successfully defended itself against these allegations in a United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Tiffany & Co made a desperate, unsuccessful effort to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter featured a number of interventions from amicus curiae — Tiffany was supported by Coty, the Fashion Designer's Guild, and the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition, while eBay was defended by publicly-spirited civil society groups such as Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and Public Knowledge as well as Yahoo!, Google Inc, Amazon.com, and associations representing telecommunications carriers and internet service providers. The litigation in the United States can be counterpointed with the fusillade of legal action against eBay in the European Union. In contrast to Tiffany & Co, Louis Vuitton triumphed over eBay in the French courts — claiming its victory as vindication of the need to protect the commercial interests and cultural heritage of France. However, eBay has fared somewhat better in a dispute with L’Oréal in Great Britain and the European Court of Justice. It is argued that, in a time of flux and uncertainty, Australia should follow the position of the United States courts in Tiffany & Co v eBay Inc. The final part examines the ramifications of this litigation over online auction-houses for trade mark law reform and consumer rights; parallel disputes over intermediary liability and safe harbours in the field of copyright law and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2010. The conclusion calls for a revision of trade mark law, animated by a respect for consumers’ rights and interests in the electronic marketplace.

No logo: Brand bullies, trade mark law, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a sweeping trade agreement, spanning the Pacific Rim, and covering an array of topics, including intellectual property. There has been much analysis of the recently leaked intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief, observed “The selective secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, which has let in a few cashed-up megacorps but excluded everyone else, reveals a telling fear of public scrutiny. By publishing this text we allow the public to engage in issues that will have such a fundamental impact on their lives.” Critical attention has focused upon the lack of transparency surrounding the agreement, copyright law and the digital economy; patent law, pharmaceutical drugs, and data protection; and the criminal procedures and penalties for trade secrets. The topic of trade mark law and related rights, such as internet domain names and geographical indications, deserves greater analysis.

English Trade Mark Law in the Eighteenth Century: Blanchard v Hill Revisited - Another 'Case of Monopolies'?

The decision of Lord Hardwicke LC in Blanchard v Hill in 1742 is the earliest reported case on the equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against trade mark piracy. The ambiguous manner in which the case was reported led to the decision being interpreted as either the basis of equitable jurisdiction or a denial of jurisdiction. This article seeks to establish the background to the case, what actually happened, and the immediate impact of the decision. The scene is set, however, in a parallel symbolic universe – heraldry – because in 1740, the officers of arms were confronted with a trade mark case.

Bad Faith in European Trade Mark Law

Analyses how the European Court of Justice has interpreted the EU law rules against the registration of a trade mark or Community trade mark by an applicant in bad faith. Reviews case law from the UK courts, Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market and Community courts on the role of bad faith as a moral standard. Considers case law on the narrow interpretation of bad faith in view of other EU provisions limiting trade marks.

International trade mark law and practice,

The laws of all countries have been analyzed and arranged under a series of headings; full texts of the various international conventions on the subject of trade-marks and a complete collection of the trade-mark classifications in force in the various countries are also included. cf. Pref.

O2 v Hutchison 3G comparative advertising:European trade mark law beyond compare?

Legislation: Directive 89/104 on trade marks art.5 Directive 84/450 on misleading advertising Directive 97/55 amending Directive 84/450 concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising Case: O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd (C-533/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-4231 (ECJ (1st Chamber)) *Comms. L. 155 Long, long ago a trade mark allowed a craftsman to be identified and held accountable for shoddy goods. Today in the era of the ‘Lovemark,’1 due to extensive advertising hopes and aspirations a lifestyle can be purchased with a brand. For many products a trademark is no longer merely a badge of origin but has a commercial value of its own. Through advertising an emotional attachment is created in the heart of the consumer for particular brands. Brand owners are determined that the value of this attachment be preserved and protected against any encroachment into the aura that has been painstakingly created. Comparative advertising, the allusive use of a mark, is seen by the owners of such emotive brands as likely to jeopardise the character of the brand that they have so carefully nurtured. As they have invested so heavily in creating their concept these owners want to control its use by others. There is an issue however as to how far this control ought to extend when the image is used in the marketing of a rival's goods or services.

The Black Label: trade mark dilution, culture jamming, and the no logo movement

This article considers the ongoing debate over the appropriation of well-known and famous trade marks by the No Logo Movement for the purposes of political and social critique. It focuses upon one sensational piece of litigation in South Africa, Laugh It Off Promotions v. South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. t/a Sabmark International. In this case, a group called Laugh It Off Promotions subjected the trade marks of the manufacturers of Carling Beer were subjected to parody, social satire, and culture jamming. The beer slogan “Black Label” was turned into a T-Shirt entitled “Black Labour/ White Guilt”. In the ensuing litigation, the High Court of South Africa and the Supreme Court of Appeal were of the opinion that the appropriation of the mark was a case of hate speech. However, the Constitutional Court of South Africa disagreed, finding that the parodies of a well-known, famous trade mark did not constitute trade mark dilution. Moseneke J observed that there was a lack of evidence of economic or material harm; and Sachs J held that there is a need to provide latitude for parody, laughter, and freedom of expression. The decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa provides some important insights into the nature of trade mark dilution, the role of parody and satire, and the relevance of constitutional protections of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Arguably, the ruling will be of help in the reformation of trade mark dilution law in other jurisdictions – such as the United States. The decision in Laugh It Off Promotions v. South African Breweries International demonstrates that trade mark law should not be immune from careful constitutional scrutiny.