Federal court: The term "Tiffany setting" might be generic, and the question is (probably) one for a jury (+ AmLaw gives me ink)
Yep, that sounds about right.
LAW OF FASHION sends a hearty "thank you" to Jan Wolfe, reporter at The Litigation Daily (an American Lawyer publication), for giving me some "told you so" props in his article, "Will Tiffany Regret Suing Costco?", which examines Judge Laura Swain's recent decision in the Tiffany v. Costco case.
In a well-publicized trademark fight between the two companies, Tiffany is now at risk of losing its trademark on the term 'Tiffany setting.' U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan has held that a jury could reasonably find that the term is generic and the trademark [thus] invalid.
Later in the piece, Wolfe writes:
At least one trademark litigator questioned Tiffany's litigation strategy back in March. 'This case might have repercussions that the jewelry company should have anticipated—but apparently did not,' New York University School of Law acting assistant professor Charles Colman told the jewelry trade publication JCK. 'When cases are brought for reasons having more to do with business than law, they have a way of backfiring.'
Of course, litigation is very often brought for "business" reasons; a company's bottom line might well be impacted by (at least some) actual trademark infringement, after all. But when questionable IP infringement suits are brought perhaps because certain high-end jewelry companies are anxious about the growing market share of discount retailers like Costco and perhaps because said jewelry companies see the potential to manipulate trademark law to stem the tide, well, that's a very different -- and, from the judiciary's perspective, one imagines, rather unappealing -- narrative. (Thanks to the-industry-veteran-you-know-who-you-are for the input.)
[Like everything on LAW OF FASHION, this post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities. Any views expressed in this post or at the linked web pages are those of the relevant writer(s) on a particular date, and should not necessarily be attributed to Charles Colman; Charles Colman Law, PLLC; New York University; The Center for the Study of Fashion, Law, or Society; or any departments, subdivisions, agents, representatives, or clients thereof. Neither the writer of this post nor LAW OF FASHION (or any person or entity associated with either) can or will warrant the thoroughness or accuracy of the content here or at the cited sources.]