in the face of such general awareness, eBay took significant steps to prevent counterfeiting by developing the VeRO Program, which seeks to remove individually infringing listings. Moreover, the record reveals that when eBay became aware, through its VeRO Program, of Tiffany’s good-faith belief that a listing was infringing, it investigated and removed that listing from its website. Were Tiffany to prevail in its argument that eBay was willfully blind, the “reason to know” standard of the Inwood test would be inflated into an affirmative duty to take precautions against potential counterfeiters, even when eBay had no specific knowledge of the individual counterfeiters. The law explicitly precludes such an expansion of the “reason to know” standard. See Hard Rock Cafe, 955 F.2d at 1149 (<HOLDING>); Hendrickson, 165 F.Supp.2d at 1095 (holding
holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that there is no independent duty to test and even if there were it would be completely speculative as to what the consequences would be of any purported failure to fulfill this supposed duty holding that there is no affirmative duty to take precautions against the sale of counterfeits although the reason to know part of the standard for contributory liability requires defendant to understand what a reasonably prudent person would understand it does not impose any duty to seek out and prevent violations holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence