of any and all instances of infringing sales on eBay. The Court concludes that Tiffany’s general allegations of counterfeiting failed to provide eBay with the knowledge required under Inwood. i. Demand Letters and the “Five-or-More” Rule As noted above, Tiffany provided eBay with demand letters in 2003 and 2004 asserting that counterfeiting was rampant on eBay’s website and that any listing of five or more Tiffany items was presumptively counterfeit. (Pl.Ex.489, 490). However, those courts to have considered the question have held that mere assertions and demand letters are insufficient to impute knowledge as to instances not specifically identified in such notices, particularly in cases where the activity at issue is not always infringing. See, e.g., Gucci, 135 F.Supp.2d at 420 (<HOLDING>); Fare Deals Ltd. v. World Choice Travel.Com,
holding that trademark owners mere assertion that its domain name is infringed is insufficient to impute knowledge of infringement and a demand letter is also insufficient holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict holding that trademark owners demand letter is insufficient to resolve  uncertainty of infringement holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement