Cartier v. Aaron Faber, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
512 F. Supp. 2d 165 (2007)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Cartier, a division of Richemont North America, Inc. (Cartier) (plaintiff) was a designer and manufacturer of high-end jewelry and timepieces and owned the trademark “Cartier” for clocks and watches. Aaron Faber, Inc. (Faber) (defendant) acquired genuine Cartier watches and had third-party jewelers mount diamonds on them, including in ways intended to appear identical to more expensive watches sold by Cartier. Faber then sold the watches to auction houses on consignment. The watches retained Cartier’s marks with no indication that they had been significantly altered after leaving Cartier’s hands. Cartier sued Faber for trademark infringement. The district court found that Faber’s means of modifying the watches created a likelihood that customers would be deceived into believing the alterations were performed by Cartier and entered summary judgment in favor of Cartier on the question of liability. Faber argued that monetary damages were not recoverable due to a lack of notice that Cartier’s marks were registered and that monetary damages required a showing of willful deception or actual confusion. Faber cross-moved for summary judgment denying Cartier’s claims for monetary damages.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marrero, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
