Cyber Law

Running head: CYBER LAW
CYBER LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CYBER LAW
Question 1
Facts
The Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 was a case of trademark infringement,
false advertising and trademark dilution. In this case Tiffany & Co. was the plaintiff who alleged
that eBay Inc., who was the defendant in this case, have constituted contributory and direct
infringement and dilution of trademark and also advertised falsely through facilitating and
advertising counterfeited jewelleries of Tiffany in its online market (Pantalony, 2015).
Tiffany filled complaint to eBay in relation to the selling of the counterfeit items on the
online website. Even after the complaint when eBay continued to sell the counterfeit items,
Tiffany demanded to eBay for preventing the listing of 5 or more jewellery items of Tiffany at
once; ban the selling of silver jewellery of Tiffany; ban the selling of advertised Tiffany
counterfeit items; stop the advertising of Tiffany merchandise available and to remove the
advertisement of Tiffany sponsored link on the search engine. eBay continued to sale Tiffany
jewellery and the buying the advertisement of sponsored link trough third party. eBay’s refusal
of categorically banning the listing of more than 5 items of Tiffany at once triggered the lawsuit.
The following are some of the facts of the case, direct infringement of trademark by eBay’s
advertisement of Tiffany goods in several ways like purchasing sponsored link; contributory
infringement of trademark by providing its platform for the selling of counterfeit merchandise
even after having the reason or knowledge and continuing the supply of the counterfeit
merchandise; unfair competition; false advertisement and dilution of trademark (Fong et al.,
2017).

2CYBER LAW
Issue
Whether eBay has constituted the commission of direct infringement of trademark,
contributory infringement of trademark, unfair competition, false advertisement and dilution of
trademark and whether the infringing conduct of eBay affects and violates the public policy.
Arguments
It was argued by Tiffany that advertisement for the availability was made by the eBay for
the Tiffany goods in several platforms including the homepage of eBay; it has also been argued
by Tiffany that violation of the Trademark Act 1946 and New York state common law has been
made by eBay in following three ways, firstly eBay made profit out of the Tiffany jewellery sale
which resulted from Tiffany trademark. Secondly, Yahoo and Google sponsored links were
bought by eBay which advertised the listing of Tiffany items. Lastly, eBay must be held
severally and jointly liable with all the offending sellers. It was argued by Tiffany that eBay has
constituted the contributory infringement of trademark. It was argued by eBay that their website
is a service which provides to the third parties venue for the listing. It was argued by tiffany that
unfair competition, false advertisement and dilution of trademark have been practised by eBay.
Applicable laws
It was alleged by Tiffany that eBay has committed infringement of trademark by
violating section 32 of the Trademark Act 1946, which authorizes a registered mark owner of
bringing a civil action with the trademark and patent office against the person violating the
section. It can be supported with the case of " ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135, 145-46
(2d Cir.), where the court laid down the test of two-prong, where the first determines the
plaintiff’s entitlement to protection of that mark and the second determines the defendant’s