"Jewellery Queen" Tiffany Was Not As Simple As A Brand Name

Not long ago, Tiffany, a famous American company, will be brought to court as a retailer's Costco because of trademark infringement.

The reason is that (according to Tiffany, jeweler), because Costco has copied Tiffany's trademark in its store, it has publicize and sell its jewelry, and the jewelry is not produced by Costo.

To this end, jewellery merchant Tiffany took Costco to the federal court of southern New York, hoping to protect its trademark exclusive right.

However, according to the news, Costco thinks that "Tiffany" is the generic name of single drill ring, so it can not constitute trademark infringement.

The so-called "brand name" is a kind of unfair competition behavior, which mainly refers to the registration of a famous trademark into its own company name, so as to confuse the company name and brand name, and try to make it.

It is mistaken that the famous brand is produced by the company, thereby expanding its sales and gaining profits.

As a well-known trademark, Diffany is also doomed.

However, Costco claims that "Tiffany" can be regarded as the general term of single drill ring, so it can not be called trademark infringement.

According to Xiao Zhi analysis,

In the theory of anti dilution, Costco cited this reason precisely to indicate that he infringed on other people's exclusive right to trademark.

Tiffany, the queen of the jewelry industry, was born in 1837. In 1853, Charles Tiffany had mastered the control of the company and simplified the company name to "Tiffany" (Tiffany), which is famous for its diamonds and silver products.

Today, Tiffany has developed into one of the world's leading luxury goods companies.

Its Tiffany Blue Box has become a symbol of the unique and simple style of the United States.

And this time

Perhaps the first response to the incident is whether it is another notorious "brand name" incident.

In the theory of anti dilution of well-known trademarks, the dilution of well-known trademarks can be divided into the following forms:

First, weakening refers to the fact that there is no right to use the same or similar trademark to be used in goods or service providers of different categories of well-known trademarks, thereby weakening the relationship between the well-known trademark and its original commodity or service, and weakening the significance of the trademark.

Two, vilify refers to the act of not having the right to use the same or similar trademark in a commodity or service that will produce a widespread, defiled or negative effect on the good reputation of the well-known trademark.

Three, degradation refers to the well-known trademark as the general name of the commodity, thereby making the well-known trademark completely lose its significant behavior.

It is obvious that the behavior of Costco is in line with the third mentioned above, which is to make well-known trademarks as the general name of commodities, thereby making the well-known trademarks completely lose their significant behavior.

Moreover, the court ruled last Tuesday that Costco's actions constituted trademark infringement and demanded that the company compensate for all losses including Tiffany, including profits.