The jeweller first took action in 2004 against eBay, claiming that its anti-counterfeiting processes were not rigorous enough and that it must bear some responsibility for the large numbers of fake Tiffany goods being sold through the site.
Tiffany said that 73% of supposed Tiffany goods that it checked were fakes.
EBay's policy is to remove fakes from sale when asked to do so by genuine trade mark holders, but not before notification. Under its policies, responsibility for identification of fakes lies with the trade mark holder.
Last month a New York court backed that approach. Judge Richard Sullivan said that eBay's policies were rigorous enough.
In his ruling he said that eBay could not be held responsible for trade mark infringement "based solely on their generalized knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring on their Web sites".
"Tiffany must ultimately bear the burden of protecting its trademark," said the ruling. "The issue is whether eBay continued to provide its website to sellers when eBay knew or had reason to know that those sellers were using the website to traffic in counterfeit Tiffany jewelry. The Court finds that when eBay possessed the requisite knowledge, it took appropriate steps to remove listings and suspend service," it said.
Tiffany has now lodged an appeal against that ruling, arguing that the judge's view of trade mark law was wrong.
"[Judge Sullivan] got several important legal issues wrong," Tiffany lawyer James Swire told the Associated Press. "The judge's entire analysis of what is Tiffany's responsibility with respect to the site versus eBay's starts from an incorrect basis."
"The fact of the matter is eBay has created the venue, eBay is profiting from the venue, eBay absolutely controls the venue," Swire said. "It's eBay's obligation, once it has knowledge ... to take the knowledge to investigate and stop the sale of counterfeit merchandise."
EBay has faced other legal challenges to its auction system from trade mark holders. It lost two French cases this year to luxury goods manufacturers who argued that it should bear some responsibility for the sale of counterfeit products.
Handbag, clothing and perfume company Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVMH) claimed that the company did not do enough to combat the sale of counterfeits of its goods and a French judge agreed.
The court found "serious faults" in eBay's processes that led to auctions of counterfeit goods going ahead and ordered it to pay €39 million to the brand holders. By allowing the sales, eBay had damaged the reputation of luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior, it said.
EBay also had to pay out €20,000 to Hermes over the sale of three Hermes bags, two of which were fakes.
