TrendsJul 18, 2025
Piece of the Week: CCWW Designs’ Shell Charm NecklaceThe charm necklace features six nautical charms of shells and coral that founder Christina Puchi collected on Florida’s beaches.
MajorsOct 12, 2016
Analysis: Why Tiffany Won $15M from Costco
Attorneys Emily Miao and Daniel Organ dissect the jury’s verdict in Tiffany’s trademark lawsuit against wholesale club Costco.
Emily Miao, Ph.D., is a partner at the law firm of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP in Chicago. She has more than 20 years’ experience in all aspects of intellectual property practice. MBHB associate Daniel L. Organ has experience preparing and prosecuting U.S. and foreign patents in a variety of technical fields.
In a highly publicized decision last year1, federal Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the luxury retailer Tiffany & Co. (“Tiffany”), deciding that Costco Wholesale Corp. (“Costco”), the largest U.S. warehouse club chain, willfully infringed Tiffany’s trademark.
According to the court, Costco sold counterfeit diamond engagement rings bearing the Tiffany name and confused relevant consumers by using the word “Tiffany” in display case signage. Judge Swain’s initial ruling against Costco allowed Tiffany to take Costco before a jury to seek damages, including profits from Costco’s sale of diamond rings, statutory damages, and punitive damages.
After several delays, the jury met in September for “Phase I” of the trial to decide (1) the amount of Costco’s profits and statutory damages under the Federal Lanham Act, and (2) whether Tiffany was entitled to punitive damages under New York General Business Law §349 and New York Common Law. “Phase II” was triggered when the jury found Costco liable for punitive damages. In their Phase I verdict, the Jury determined that Costco profited by $3.7 million from the infringing sales, and added an additional $1.8 million to fully compensate Tiffany, bringing the total award for profits to $5.5 million.2 The jury also awarded $2 million for statutory damages.3 The jury further held that Tiffany was entitled to punitive damages, and in the Phase II verdict awarded Tiffany another $8.25 million.4
Analysis of Costco’s Profits
Tiffany sought an accounting of profits based on the sale of both “non-subject goods” (e.g., Costco memberships and goods other than diamond rings) and “subject goods” (e.g., diamond rings). Under Second Circuit law, in calculating “defendant’s profits,” a court should base its analysis on “infringing sales,” or sales that can be tied to the Lanham Act violation alleged.5 The court held that Tiffany presented no evidence tying the “non-subject goods” to Costco’s alleged infringement, and therefore removed the “non-subject goods” from the analysis. Regarding the “subject goods,” however, the court held that Costco did not act in good faith and therefore Tiffany was allowed to seek an accounting for profits from their sale.6 The court’s decision allowed the jury to decide, in the damages phase of the trial, how much Tiffany was entitled to for damages from Costco’s unlawful use of Tiffany’s mark.
During the damages trial, Tiffany argued that it was entitled to millions in damages from
profits realized by Costco, while Costco asserted the amount based on actual sales would be no more than $382,000.7 The jury disagreed with Costco, and awarded Tiffany $5.5 million based on Costco’s profits.
Analysis of Statutory Damages
In addition to awarding Tiffany Costco’s profits, the jury awarded Tiffany $2 million in statutory damages. The Federal Lanham Act states that when a counterfeit mark is used, up to $2 million may be awarded for a willful violation.8 In Judge Swain’s initial ruling, the court held that, as a matter of law, Costco used a counterfeit mark and that Tiffany satisfied the willfulness requirement.9 Then, to decide the exact amount of damages, the jury was instructed to consider factors such as Costco’s profits, Tiffany’s lost revenue, and the value of the mark.10 As a result, the jury determined that the maximum $2 million in statutory damages was justified.
Analysis of Punitive Damage
Tiffany sought punitive damages under both federal and state law. Under federal law, the court held that the Lanham Act prevents the collection of punitive damages.11 Under state law, however, the court noted that New York General Business Law §349 and New York Common Law allow punitive damages, albeit with an exceptionally high bar.12 Under these laws, “punitive damages are available where a defendant’s conduct has constituted gross, wanton or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct to an extreme degree.”13 The court listed evidence in Tiffany’s favor, including emails from Costco jewelry buyers asking vendors to copy Tiffany designs and testimony that Costco employees were aware of customer confusion but did nothing to remedy it.14
The jury ultimately agreed with Tiffany and in “Phase II” of the damages trial awarded Tiffany $8.25 million.
Conclusion
After the initial ruling, Judge Swain directed Tiffany and Costco to attempt to settle the outstanding issues. But since no settlement occurred, the damages phase proceeded and the jury handed Tiffany a sweeping victory, awarding nearly $16 million in damages.
Tiffany has been involved for many years in lawsuits regarding its intellectual property. A recent PACER search (PACER is a service for publically accessing court records electronically) returned 28 lawsuits since 1991 involving Tiffany copyrights, patents and trademarks. While the award of nearly $16 million against Costco is one of Tiffany’s largest, Tiffany previously won a default judgment of $26.5 million against numerous defendants for infringing on Tiffany trademarks and using infringing domain names.
Costco is also no stranger to lawsuits regarding intellectual property issues, both as a plaintiff and (more often) as a defendant. A recent PACER search returned 190 lawsuits over intellectual property issues since 1991, comprising 47 trademark suits of which Costco was a defendant in 36; 119 patent suits of which Costco was a defendant in 102; and 24 copyright suits of which Costco was a defendant in 22.
Tiffany has a history of policing its trademarks,15 in particular regarding goods such as its jewelry16, blue gift boxes, cufflinks, and money clips17. But Tiffany has not policed its marks with respect to engagement rings--until now. The facts here were straight forward and favorable to Tiffany, so it is unsurprising that Tiffany won. Had Tiffany lost, there would have been inherent confusion around the use of the “TIFFANY” mark as applied to diamond rings and ring settings. Such a result would have been contrary to one of the purposes of trademark protection, which is to avoid consumer confusion.18
With the conclusion of the damages trial, and assuming Judge Swain accepts the jury’s findings, Costco will likely file an appeal against Judge Swain’s ruling and the damages award. Stay tuned for further developments.
©2016 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. The information contained in this article reflects the understanding and opinions of the authors and is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to and does not represent legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by providing this information to you. The information in this article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your particular state.
1 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d 241 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015).
2 Jury Verdict Form at 1, Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13CV1041 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016), ECF No. 353.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Jury Verdict Form at 1, Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13CV1041 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2016), ECF No. 357.
5 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d at 259 (referencing Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Two Wheel Corp., 918 F.2d 1060, 1063-64 (2d Cir. 1990)).
6 Id. at *261.
7 Tiffany's Damages Case A Publicity Stunt, Costco Tells Jury, Law360 (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/845762/tiffany-s-damages-case-a-publicity-stunt-costco-tells-jury.
8 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(c)(2).
9 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d at 255.
10 Jury Instructions at 23-24, Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13CV1041 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016), ECF No. 345.
11 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d at 261.
12 Id.
13 Id., (citing Altadis U.S.A., Inc. v. Monte Cristi de Tabacos, c.x.a., No. 96CV4209-BSJ, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6892 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2001)).
14 Id. at 262.
15 For example, in 2006, Tiffany had an employee dedicate to monitoring listings on the eBay website for counterfeits and report any violations to eBay on a daily basis. See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that eBay did not infringe Tiffany’s marks). See also Complaint at ¶ 17 (describing other brand protection strategies).
16 See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding the operator of a website that sold counterfeit Tiffany jewelry liable for willful infringement).
17 See Tiffany (NJ), LLC v. 925LY.Com, 2:11-CV-00590-LDG, 2011 WL 2118634 (D. Nev. May 25, 2011) (issuing a preliminary injunction in favor of Tiffany).
18 See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 774 (1992).
Analysis of Statutory Damages
In addition to awarding Tiffany Costco’s profits, the jury awarded Tiffany $2 million in statutory damages. The Federal Lanham Act states that when a counterfeit mark is used, up to $2 million may be awarded for a willful violation.8 In Judge Swain’s initial ruling, the court held that, as a matter of law, Costco used a counterfeit mark and that Tiffany satisfied the willfulness requirement.9 Then, to decide the exact amount of damages, the jury was instructed to consider factors such as Costco’s profits, Tiffany’s lost revenue, and the value of the mark.10 As a result, the jury determined that the maximum $2 million in statutory damages was justified.
Analysis of Punitive Damage
Tiffany sought punitive damages under both federal and state law. Under federal law, the court held that the Lanham Act prevents the collection of punitive damages.11 Under state law, however, the court noted that New York General Business Law §349 and New York Common Law allow punitive damages, albeit with an exceptionally high bar.12 Under these laws, “punitive damages are available where a defendant’s conduct has constituted gross, wanton or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct to an extreme degree.”13 The court listed evidence in Tiffany’s favor, including emails from Costco jewelry buyers asking vendors to copy Tiffany designs and testimony that Costco employees were aware of customer confusion but did nothing to remedy it.14
The jury ultimately agreed with Tiffany and in “Phase II” of the damages trial awarded Tiffany $8.25 million.
Conclusion
After the initial ruling, Judge Swain directed Tiffany and Costco to attempt to settle the outstanding issues. But since no settlement occurred, the damages phase proceeded and the jury handed Tiffany a sweeping victory, awarding nearly $16 million in damages.
Tiffany has been involved for many years in lawsuits regarding its intellectual property. A recent PACER search (PACER is a service for publically accessing court records electronically) returned 28 lawsuits since 1991 involving Tiffany copyrights, patents and trademarks. While the award of nearly $16 million against Costco is one of Tiffany’s largest, Tiffany previously won a default judgment of $26.5 million against numerous defendants for infringing on Tiffany trademarks and using infringing domain names.
Costco is also no stranger to lawsuits regarding intellectual property issues, both as a plaintiff and (more often) as a defendant. A recent PACER search returned 190 lawsuits over intellectual property issues since 1991, comprising 47 trademark suits of which Costco was a defendant in 36; 119 patent suits of which Costco was a defendant in 102; and 24 copyright suits of which Costco was a defendant in 22.
Tiffany has a history of policing its trademarks,15 in particular regarding goods such as its jewelry16, blue gift boxes, cufflinks, and money clips17. But Tiffany has not policed its marks with respect to engagement rings--until now. The facts here were straight forward and favorable to Tiffany, so it is unsurprising that Tiffany won. Had Tiffany lost, there would have been inherent confusion around the use of the “TIFFANY” mark as applied to diamond rings and ring settings. Such a result would have been contrary to one of the purposes of trademark protection, which is to avoid consumer confusion.18
With the conclusion of the damages trial, and assuming Judge Swain accepts the jury’s findings, Costco will likely file an appeal against Judge Swain’s ruling and the damages award. Stay tuned for further developments.
©2016 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. The information contained in this article reflects the understanding and opinions of the authors and is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to and does not represent legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by providing this information to you. The information in this article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your particular state.
1 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d 241 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015).
2 Jury Verdict Form at 1, Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13CV1041 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016), ECF No. 353.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Jury Verdict Form at 1, Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13CV1041 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2016), ECF No. 357.
5 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d at 259 (referencing Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Two Wheel Corp., 918 F.2d 1060, 1063-64 (2d Cir. 1990)).
6 Id. at *261.
7 Tiffany's Damages Case A Publicity Stunt, Costco Tells Jury, Law360 (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/845762/tiffany-s-damages-case-a-publicity-stunt-costco-tells-jury.
8 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(c)(2).
9 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d at 255.
10 Jury Instructions at 23-24, Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13CV1041 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016), ECF No. 345.
11 Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d at 261.
12 Id.
13 Id., (citing Altadis U.S.A., Inc. v. Monte Cristi de Tabacos, c.x.a., No. 96CV4209-BSJ, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6892 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2001)).
14 Id. at 262.
15 For example, in 2006, Tiffany had an employee dedicate to monitoring listings on the eBay website for counterfeits and report any violations to eBay on a daily basis. See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that eBay did not infringe Tiffany’s marks). See also Complaint at ¶ 17 (describing other brand protection strategies).
16 See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding the operator of a website that sold counterfeit Tiffany jewelry liable for willful infringement).
17 See Tiffany (NJ), LLC v. 925LY.Com, 2:11-CV-00590-LDG, 2011 WL 2118634 (D. Nev. May 25, 2011) (issuing a preliminary injunction in favor of Tiffany).
18 See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 774 (1992).
More on Majors
The Latest
TechnologyJul 18, 2025
Brad Campbell, John Liebler Join Clientbook’s Executive Team Campbell joins the company as vice president of business development while Liebler is the new vice president of operations.
CollectionsJul 17, 2025
2026 Winter Olympic Medal Design Symbolizes UnityThe medals feature a split-texture design highlighting the Games’ first time being hosted by two cities and the athletes’ journeys.
Brought to you by
Investing in the Next Generation of Bench JewelersThe Seymour & Evelyn Holtzman Bench Scholarship from Jewelers of America returns for a second year.
Supplier BulletinJul 17, 2025
The INSTORE Jewelry Show 2025: Your Holiday Preparations, All Wrapped Up! Sponsored by The INSTORE Jewelry Show 2025
Weekly QuizJul 17, 2025
This Week’s QuizTest your jewelry news knowledge by answering these questions.
SurveysJul 17, 2025
The Most Recommended Brands in the World, According to YouGovGlobally, travel and transportation brands reigned, while in the U.S., alcoholic beverage companies and a lingerie brand took the top spots.
IndependentsJul 17, 2025
Gina Ferranti of GiGi Ferranti Jewelry Dies at 59The Brooklyn-based jewelry designer is remembered as a true artist and a rare talent.
Brought to you by
Jewelers of America is Headed to Las Vegas for JCK 2025The countdown is on for the JCK Las Vegas Show and JA is pulling out all the stops.
SourcingJul 17, 2025
Rio Tinto Names New CEO, Production Rises at DiavikProduction at the mine in Canada’s Northwest Territories topped 1 million carats in Q2, the third consecutive quarter of growth.
Events & AwardsJul 17, 2025
JA to Hold Learning Workshops This FallA new slate of Learning Workshops will take place in Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Georgia.
SurveysJul 16, 2025
Signet Jewelers Falls Lower on NRF’s ‘Top 100’ Retailers ListThe middle class is changing its approach to buying jewelry and affordable luxury goods, the NRF said.
FinancialsJul 16, 2025
Richemont’s Jewelry Sales Up 7% in Q1It marks the third consecutive quarter of growth for Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Buccellati, and Vhernier.
WatchesJul 16, 2025
The Top-Selling Rolex Models of the Last 15 Years, According to Bob’s Watches The reseller’s market trends report, based on its sales data, also shows exactly how much Rolex prices have jumped since 2010.
AuctionsJul 16, 2025
Christie’s To Honor Dinh Van With ExhibitionThe auction house will be hosting a retrospective paying tribute to jeweler Jean Dinh Van and his company’s 60th anniversary.
IndependentsJul 16, 2025
Clyde Duneier Ushers In Fourth GenerationJake Duneier and Danielle Duneier-Goldberg have stepped into the roles of CEO and president, respectively.
CollectionsJul 15, 2025
Boucheron’s New High Jewelry Calls Attention to Nature’s ImpermanenceThe “Impermanence” collection contemplates nature through the Japanese art of Ikebana (flower arranging) and philosophy of wabi-sabi.
MajorsJul 15, 2025
James Avery Expands to 2 More StatesThe Texas-based jewelry retailer has set up shop in Tennessee and Arizona.
Events & AwardsJul 15, 2025
Neiman Marcus Vet Joins Couture as Brand Director Eric Ford will step into the role, bringing with him decades of experience.
MajorsJul 15, 2025
Ben Bridge Jeweler Acquires Olympic ManufacturingIn addition to improved capabilities, the acquisition will allow the jeweler to offer support to other independent jewelers.
CollectionsJul 15, 2025
Guzema Debuts First Colored Gemstone JewelryThe “Celestial Blue” capsule collection campaign features Olympian Kateryna Sadurska.
MajorsJul 14, 2025
Nanis Opens First StoreThe seasonal store, located in Mykonos, Greece, offers exclusive events, personal styling, and curated experiences.
IndependentsJul 14, 2025
It’s the Summer of Love at Long’s JewelersThe New England jeweler is hosting a bridal event for the month of August.
SourcingJul 14, 2025
Ethical Gem Fair Heads to SeattleThe trade-only event will host its debut fair in the Emerald City later this month.
Events & AwardsJul 11, 2025
The Edge’s Annual Conference Returns in SeptemberIts sessions will focus on inventory strategies, staff performance, retention and acquisition, emerging market trends, and more.
CollectionsJul 11, 2025
Piece of the Week: Miseno’s ‘Arco’ EarringsFor its 10th anniversary, Miseno designed the “Arco” earrings based on the Arco Felice, an arch conceptualized in A.D. 95 in Miseno, Italy.
Policies & IssuesJul 11, 2025
James Avery to Donate $1M to Texas Hill Country Relief EffortsThe jewelry company is one of several contributing to relief efforts in the region after the recent floods.
TrendsJul 11, 2025
Kelly Osbourne’s Engagement Ring Is Sweet as HoneyInspired by fiancé Sid Wilson’s nickname for her, the white and yellow diamond ring features a unique honeycomb design.
