Se trata de la sentencia "Tiffany and Co et al v. Costco Wholesale Corp.", No. 17-2798 (2d Cir., Aug. 17, 2020), que mencionaremos como Tiffany v Costco en este post.
El punto que se plantea hace un tiempo se viene ventilando en los estrados en USA. Concisamente es si la referencia que hace una empresa a determinados anillos que vende, siendo del estilo - o tan parecidos como lo consideren en las imágenes que adjuntamos abajo... - a los de otra cuya marca usa para ofrecerlos en venta la primera, es descriptivo. Siendo una forma de describir los objetos, no sería infracción de la segunda empresa que ofrece anillos...
En este escenario Tiffany inició hace algunos años a Costco.
Y la valoración de la Corte respecto del alcance de referencia descriptiva no toma en cuenta la posición de la empresa tradicional del rubro joyería, en este caso reclamante. Seguramente leeremos muchos comentarios al respecto.
Link al mencionado artículo:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-jewel-of-an-opinion-or-missing-the-15966/
Algunos párrafos del pronunciamiento de agosto de 2020:
"Tiffany brought suit against Costco under the Lanham Act and New York law, alleging that Costco was liable for, inter alia, trademark infringement andcounterfeiting in connection with its sale of diamond engagement rings identified by point-of-sale signs containing the word “Tiffany.” Though Costco does not dispute that Tiffany has a valid, registered trademark for the word “Tiffany,” it argued before the district court that it was using th at word in a different, widely recognized sense to refer to a particular style of pronged diamond setting not exclusive to rings affiliated with Tiffany."
Resultados de instancia jurisprudencial anterior:
"The district court granted summary judgment for Tiffany & Co., concluding that Costco raised no genuine issue of material fact as to any Polaroid factor and could not establish a fair use defense as a matter of law. First formulated by the Second Circuit in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp, 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), the eight Polaroid factors are (1) the strength of the trademark; (2) the degree of similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the defendant’s allegedly imitative use; (3) the proximity of the products and their competitiveness with each other; (4) the likelihood that the plaintiff will “bridge the gap” by developing a product for sale in the defendant’s market; (5) evidence of actual consumer confusion; (6) evidence that the defendant adopted the imitative term in bad faith; (7) the respective quality of the products; and (8) the sophistication of the relevant population of consumers. The court further held that Costco’s infringement constituted counterfeiting as a matter of law. After a jury trial on damages, the court awarded treble and punitive damages exceeding $21 million dollars. Costco appealed."
Comentario del artículo indicado, de JDSupra, que deja sin efecto el pronunciamiento anterior:
"With respect to Costco’s fair use defense, the Second Circuit found that Costco had presented sufficient evidence to support each prong of the analysis—particularly, that it used the term “Tiffany” (1) other than as a mark, (2) in a descriptive sense, and (3) in good faith. The Second Circuit credited the fact that Costco did not use “Tiffany” as the lead term of the product, and instead used it in the same place as Costco typically provides information about the type of engagement ring setting. The panel explained that “a trademarked term for use in a particular industry does not preclude a jury’s finding that the term has some descriptive use within the same industry.” Finally, the panel found that Costco had presented sufficient evidence (including a century’s worth of documents) to enable a jury to conclude that “the word ‘Tiffany’, when used in conjunction with a particular six-pronged stone setting, had acquired a descriptive meaning in the jewelry trade that did not suggest an association with the jeweler Tiffany & Co.”"
Acá se puede ver la sentencia, se puede bajar:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-2798/17-2798-2020-08-17.html
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/17-2798
Más información:
https://eldiariony.com/2020/08/19/costco-se-libra-de-pagar-21-millones-de-dolares-por-la-venta-de-anillos-tiffany-falsos/
https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/08/federal-appeals-court-overturns-21-million-judgment-against-costco-in-tiffany-trademark-infringement-case/
REferencia a pronunciamiento del 2017
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202795745551/
https://www.milenio.com/estilo/costco-pagar-tiffany-co-vender-anillos-pirata
Pronunciamiento del 2017
https://es.scribd.com/document/279909655/Tiffany-v-Costco-opinion-pdf
https://blogmsk.com/2020/08/20/a-jewel-of-an-opinion-or-missing-the-mark-second-circuit-holds-that-costcos-use-of-tiffany-may-be-descriptive/
Imagen del siguiente blog:
http://www.thediamondauthority.org/tiffany-vs-costco-is-this-popular-wholesale-store-selling-tiffany-rings/
Embed del inicialmente referido artículo de JDSupra:
Imagen del siguiente blog:
https://worldjusticenews.com/news/2017/08/16/us-wholesaler-costco-facing-19-4m-damages-bill-infringing-tiffany-engagement-rings-trademark/
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario