Tiffany & Co. is waging a counterfeiting lawsuit in opposition to an additional New York-based mostly jewelry company, accusing it of providing up bogus Tiffany jewelry to unsuspecting buyers through a perfectly-regarded resale platform. In the criticism that it filed in a New York federal court on May perhaps 1, Tiffany & Co. claims that early this year, it found a “Tiffany & Co. Jean Schlumberger Amethyst Chicken on a Rock Brooch” that Defendant Nally Jewels was marketing on luxury marketplace 1stdibs for nearly $70,000. Tiffany claims that it procured the brooch from through 1stdibs, which is not named as a defendant in the grievance, and paid out a full of $68,805.39.” The dilemma: Upon “further assessment,” Tiffany decided that the brooch “was not a authentic Tiffany solution.”
In addition to not remaining created and/or sold by Tiffany & Co., the brooch was not “approved by, licensed by or if not in any way appropriately related with” the Tiffany brand, the enterprise states in its new lawsuit. In fact, LVMH-owned Tiffany & Co. argues that its examination of the brooch “yielded numerous dissimilarities between the brooch and a authentic Tiffany brooch, as nicely as many unacceptable design deficits that would ordinarily not pass Tiffany’s strict and large-top quality standards.”
Not accurately a 1-off, Tiffany & Co. alleges that Nally Jewels and Adelina Nalbandian and Hovik Nalbandian, who are also named as defendants, (collectively, “Nally”) has marketed “at least four additional counterfeit Tiffany & Co. Schlumberger Chicken on a Rock parts [between] July 2021 and July 2022,” creating revenues of $275,000 on these transactions, by yourself. “Based on [its] examinations of the complete five brooches,” Tiffany states that it “has established that the brooches, while they bear Tiffany registered trademarks” – namely, the TIFFANY, TIFFANY & CO. and TIFFANY & CO. SCHLUMBERGER phrase marks – are “not dependable with legitimate Tiffany merchandise.”
The sale of these types of counterfeits – which Nally has “intentionally” made available up under the Tiffany registered emblems “knowing they are the special property of [Tiffany]” and with the intention of “exploiting the goodwill and track record affiliated with the Tiffany registered trademarks” – has deprived Tiffany of its capability to command the high-quality of products bearing its name, the firm argues. And “because of the quite real chance of confusion as to the supply of [Nally’s] merchandise, [Tiffany’s] popularity and valuable goodwill in its emblems is at the mercy of [Nally’s] unscrupulous ways.”
With the foregoing in thoughts, Tiffany & Co. promises that Nally Jewels is on the hook for “willful and intentional infringement of the Tiffany registered emblems,” as their unauthorized use of the trademarks “is probable to lead to confusion and miscalculation in the minds of the getting community, and, in distinct, tends to and does falsely generate the effect that the merchandise offered by [Nally] are approved, sponsored, or authorized by [Tiffany] when, in actuality, they are not.” Tiffany additional asserts that the defendants’ infringing things to do are “in overall disregard of [its] legal rights and have been commenced in spite of [their] understanding that the use of any of the Tiffany registered logos, or a duplicate or colorable imitation thereof, was and is in immediate contravention of [its] legal rights.”
Placing out statements of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and unfair level of competition, Tiffany & Co. is looking for financial damages, as very well as injunctive reduction to bar Nally from continuing to promote Tiffany brand counterfeits, more infringing its registered logos by “manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, marketing, promoting, presenting for sale, marketing,” and so on. any products and solutions not licensed by Tiffany that “bear any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, duplicate or colorable imitation of” its emblems, and using “a wrong description or illustration which includes terms or other symbols tending to falsely explain or stand for [Nally’s] unauthorized items as staying individuals of [Tiffany] or sponsored by or involved with [Tiffany] and from presenting this sort of merchandise into commerce, amid other factors.
A rep for Nally Jewels did not respond to a ask for for comment.
The scenario is Tiffany (NJ), LLC v. Nally Jewels Inc., d/b/a Nally Jewels, et al., 1:23-cv-03631 (SDNY).
