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

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the defendants’ expert reports and related deposition testimony. Although the defendants’ invalidity contentions did not state the specific theories of invalidity upon which the expert opined, the court found that none of the Pennypack factors supported excluding that expert testimony.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.