Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TIFFANY CNJ) INC. and TIFFANY AND

COMPANY,04 Civ. 4607 (KMK)

Plaintiffs,

eBAY INC.,

Defendant.

TIFFANY"S MEMORt~NDUM OF LAW LN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION INLIMINEARNOLD & PORTER LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

399 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10022

(212) 715-1000

Case 1:04-cv-04607-KMK Document 59 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 23

OF CONTENTS

Pag;e

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................5POINT I ADMISSION OF THE TRADEMARKS WOULD NOT UNFAIRLYPREJUDICE eBAY OR UNDULY DELAY THE TRIAL.....................................5

A. eBay Cannot Demonstrate Unfair Prejudice............................................................61. Because eBay Had Notice of the "New" Trademarks from the

Outset of This Action, eBay Is Not Prejudiced........... .........,..,.., .........,.7

2. eBay Was Not Denied the Ability to Pursue DiscoveryConcerning the "New" Trademarks........................................................... ii

3. eBay Is Not Prejudiced by the Absence of Citation to Any of the

Trademarks in the Pretrial Order ............................................................... 12

B. The Risk of a Possibly Higher Damage Award Is Not the Type of

Prejudice That Would Trigger Rule 403 ................................................................ 14

C. The Admission of the 'T\Tew"Trademarks Would Not Delay Proceedings

in This Action ........................................................................................................15POINT II THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF ALLOF TIFFANY'S REGISTERED TRADEMARKS ............................................... 15CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................. 17

Case 1:04-cv-04607-KMK Document 59 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 23

OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Constantino v. David M. Herzog, MD., P.C,

203 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2000).........................................................................................14Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc.,561 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1977),cert denied, 435 U.S. 996 (1978) ................................................................................. 14Exxon Corp. v. Exxene Corp.,696 F.2d 544 (7th Cir. 1982) .......................................................................................12

Fingermates, Inc. v. Nailtique Cosmetic Corp.,

42 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1248 (D.N.J. 1996) .........................................................................7. 16Geremia v. First National Bank ofBoston,653 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1981) ...........................................................................................12

Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp.

635 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................................6Home Depot USA., Inc. v. G $ S Investors/Willow Park, L.P.,

Nos. 98-CV-6719 (TCP ARL), 00-CV-676 (TCP ARL),

2005 WL 3018701 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2005).................................................................5Howey v. United States,481 F.2d 1187(9th Cir. 1973) .......................................................................................6In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation,

No. 02 Civ. 3288 DLC

2005 WL 375314 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2005)................................................................14

John McShain, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,563 F.2d 632 (3d Cir. 1977).........................................................................................15

Keith v. Volpe,858 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1988),cert. denied, 493 U.S. 813 (1989) ................................................................................ 16Lamborn v. Dittmer,873 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1989)...................................................................................12. 13

Middle Atlantic Utilities Co. v. S.M.W.Development Corp.,

392 F.2d 380 (2d Cir. 1968)...........................................................................................6

Case 1:04-cv-04607-KMK Document 59 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 3 of 23