potentially counterfeit Tiffany listings more cheaply, quickly, and effectively than Tiffany, the burden to police the Tiffany trademark should have shifted to eBay. Certainly, the evidence adduced at trial failed to prove that eBay was a cheaper cost avoider than Tiffany with respect to policing its marks. But more importantly, even if it were true that eBay is best situated to staunch the tide of trademark infringement to which Tiffany and countless other rights owners are subjected, that is not the law. See 2 McCarthy § 11:91 (“[T]he corporate owners of trademarks have a duty to protect and preserve the corporation’s trademark assets though vigilant policing and appropriate acts of enforcement.”); MDT Corp., 858 F.Supp. at 1034; see also Inwood, 456 U.S. at 854 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 2182 (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, the Court
holding that resentencing was required where the district court used an incorrect higher base level holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion but applied an incorrect standard holding that imposing liability where manufacturers could reasonably anticipate trademark violations is a watered down and incorrect standard holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding that the absence of privity does not constitute a policy reason for not imposing liability where negligence is a substantial factor in causing the harm alleged