Southern District of New York Jury Orders Costco to Pay Tiffany & Co. $8.25 Million in Punitive Damages for Selling Trademark-Infringing Engagement Rings

Oct 17, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Tiffany first came to know of Costco’s allegedly infringing activity in November 2012, when a customer alerted Tiffany that it had observed Costco rings that it believed were being advertised as “Tiffany” rings. Tiffany initiated the lawsuit in February 2013, which was followed by Costco’s counterclaim alleging that the “Tiffany” mark was generic. In September 2015, Judge Laura Swain ruled on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, granting Tiffany’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Costco’s liability for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, and denying Costco’s counterclaim that the “Tiffany” mark had become generic.

In finding a likelihood of confusion, the court noted the testimony of several Costco customers who were actually confused, as well as Tiffany’s expert, who concluded that “more than two out of five prospective purchasers of diamond engagement rings at Costco were likely confused into believing that Tiffany & Co. was the source of the rings.” Despite Costco’s argument that “Tiffany” appears in the dictionary as a descriptive term, the court had also rejected Costco’s genericism argument, noting that “Costco has proffered no affirmative evidence that raises a material issue of fact with respect to the issue of whether the primary significance of the Tiffany mark to the relevant public is as a generic descriptor or a brand identifier.”

Although only 2,500 of these rings were reportedly sold (with a majority of these customers offered refunds), and although Costco had argued at trial that the maximum damages figure was $781,000, the total award (compensatory and punitive) against Costco is now $13.75 million. The jury’s punitive damages finding was likely due in part to the court’s previous finding that emails “were sent from Costco jewelry buyers asking vendors to copy Tiffany designs, as well as testimony indicating that Costco employees were aware of customer confusion but did nothing to remedy it.”

Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01041-LTS-DCF (S.D.N.Y. October 5, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.