(3-19) Locate information about the Tiffany versus ebay lawsuit and identity each side's arguments and who prevailed. What are the implications of that lawsuit for the sale of counterfeits in online auctions? Tiffany's arguments Direct and contributory trademark infringement Unfair competition . . False advertising Direct and contributory trademark dilution relating to the sale of counterfeit goods bearing Tiffany's marks through the eBay website eBay's arguments Does not itself sell any items Items sold on ebay are never in ebay's physical possession . . . They only provide a marketplace for sales, and support for sales transactions The sales transactions are done through ebay members Outcome In the opinion of Judge Richard J. Sullivan, there was no dispute as to whether Tiffany's marks were valid and protectible, and ebay agreed to Tiffany's registration of its marks. ebay's defense to Tiffany's claim of direct infringement relied on the doctrine of nominative fair use. Under this doctrine, trademark owners cannot use trademark law to prevent the resale of authentic trademark goods (Yang 2008). The court found that goods bearing the Tiffany brand were not readily identifiable without the use of the Tiffany marks, particularly since the Tiffany name is what gives the jewelry the cachet it enjoys" (Yang 2008). The court found that ebay only used as much of the Tiffany marks that were necessary to identify the goods sold (Yang 2008). The court found that eBay did not do anything which would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the actual trademark holder, Tiffany, and therefore did not create a likelihood or confusion as to Tiffany's affiliation with eBay (Yang 2008). The court continued to find the eBay's use of the Tiffany marks was protected under the doctrine of nominative fair use (Yang 2008). The court rejected Tiffany's claim that ebay was liable for trademark infringement under the theory of joint and several liability as being "misplaced and more properly addressed under the theory of contributory infringement" (Yang 2008) Looking at Tiffany's contributory infringement claim, the court used the test from Inwood. First, the court found that a reasonable anticipation standard was not support by precedent or policy and second found that general knowledge is not enough to satisfy the Inwood test. A knowing or having reason to know test and specific knowledge of infringing activity is also required