It’s hard for me to associate the Tiffany &Co. with Costco Wholesale, so the posts with a title of “Tiffany vs. Costco” brought my attention. The post talks about Tiffany &Co. accused Costco Wholesale Corp. for using “Tiffany” name in the sale of engagement rings at Costco retails and thus misleading customers; on the counter side, Costco defended that “tiffany” is used to define a generic diamond setting rather than the brand name.
I have a strong feeling that the prestigious Tiffany brand has been damaged. The two companies provide two different types of products: Tiffany provides specialty products while Costco provides convenience products. Their company’s objective is different as well. Tiffany & Co. is consumer-oriented; its premium price and limited sales offers are aimed at enhancing the company’s reputation, and eventually, increase its value in consumer’s mind. Along the history, Tiffany brand represents a sense of prestige and cherish, which is an asset for the firm. Undoubtedly, its brand image and awareness are ruined when it appears in a low-end wholesale retailer, and perhaps the tiffany-blue box would no longer be pure and unique. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to protect the iconic image and remain the company’s position of luxury and prestige. And in this case, it is essential to protect its landmark by suing Costco for infringing its name.
On the other hand, I believe Costco’s conduct is lack of business ethics, since its internal knew that it is an error of using the “tiffany” word to describe the engagement ring. However, the company continued implementing this strategy to attract customers and boost profit. This one-time transaction will be ended sooner or later. To retain customers’ trusts in the long run, what Costco really needs is to balance shareholder interests and social needs as behaving ethically. After all, it’s hard to build trust but way too easy to destroy it.
http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2013/03/21/Tiffany-Costco-Ring-032113.aspx#continue