Richemont v. Malidani: The “Superfake” Jewelry Lawsuit Targeting Cartier and Van Cleef Lookalikes
What happened
On July 30, 2025, Richemont (the parent of Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Malidani Jewelry Corp. The case, No. 1:25-cv-06284, accuses Malidani of selling high-priced jewelry that closely mimics Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou designs and Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra line.
Why it stands out
Richemont says this is not a cheap counterfeit case. The complaint alleges Malidani offers “superfakes”, high-quality replicas marketed at near-authentic prices, placing them in direct competition with the originals. Examples in the complaint include LOVE-style bracelets at $2,800, Juste un Clou-style pieces at $3,900, and Alhambra-style jewelry at $3,900–$6,000, with a full range of $1,500–$9,000.
What Richemont is claiming
Richemont asserts trademark and trade dress rights in Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou collections and trademark/design-patent-protected rights in Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra line. The suit seeks a permanent injunction, up to $2 million in statutory damages per counterfeit mark, actual damages and profits, attorneys’ fees, and an order requiring disclosure of Malidani’s manufacturing and distribution network. The Fashion Law
What Richemont is claiming
Richemont asserts trademark and trade dress rights in Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou collections and trademark/design-patent-protected rights in Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra line. The suit seeks a permanent injunction, up to $2 million in statutory damages per counterfeit mark, actual damages and profits, attorneys’ fees, and an order requiring disclosure of Malidani’s manufacturing and distribution network. The Fashion Law
The broader “superfake” problem
According to the complaint analysis, “superfakes” are products so close to the originals that even experienced buyers can be fooled, an escalating challenge for luxury brands. Richemont’s filing is being watched as a potential test of how U.S. courts handle premium-priced replicas that blur the line between “inspiration” and source confusion.
What Richemont is claiming
Richemont asserts trademark and trade dress rights in Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou collections and trademark/design-patent-protected rights in Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra line. The suit seeks a permanent injunction, up to $2 million in statutory damages per counterfeit mark, actual damages and profits, attorneys’ fees, and an order requiring disclosure of Malidani’s manufacturing and distribution network. The Fashion Law
The broader “superfake” problem
According to the complaint analysis, “superfakes” are products so close to the originals that even experienced buyers can be fooled, an escalating challenge for luxury brands. Richemont’s filing is being watched as a potential test of how U.S. courts handle premium-priced replicas that blur the line between “inspiration” and source confusion.
Case status and documentation
The federal docket confirms the filing and shows attachments that include registration exhibits and a design patent exhibit. Public docket summaries list the parties as Richemont International SA, Cartier, and Van Cleef & Arpels versus Malidani Jewelry Corp. The case is pending before Judge Loretta A. Preska.
Why this matters for brands, retailers, and marketplaces
-
- Price does not save you. Selling replicas at luxury price points can strengthen a plaintiff’s argument that the goods compete with authentic products and dilute brand equity.
-
- Disclaimers rarely help. Past matters show that “inspired by” labels have not insulated sellers from liability when overall trade dress and consumer confusion are at issue.
-
- Enforcement is rising. Richemont and other rights-holders have stepped up actions this year, from lawsuits over Alhambra trade dress to large counterfeit seizures by U.S. Customs, signaling sustained pressure on sellers and suppliers.
Practical compliance checklist
-
- Design and catalog review
Audit designs, product names, and marketing images for potential trade dress or trademark conflicts, especially iconic shapes like LOVE, Juste un Clou, and Alhambra. - Supplier vetting
Require written warranties of non-infringement from suppliers and keep documentation. Conduct spot checks and mystery-shop for risk indicators. - Marketing discipline
Avoid side-by-side comparisons, “indistinguishable from” claims, or brand-referencing SEO tactics that could support a false designation of origin theory. - Resale and consignment controls
Train intake staff and set policies for rejecting suspect items. Keep serial number checks, provenance paperwork, and clear refund/hold policies. - Response plan
If you receive a demand letter or takedown, pause sales, preserve records, and get counsel to assess exposure and settlement options.
- Design and catalog review
Key facts at a glance
-
- Plaintiffs: Richemont International SA, Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels
-
- Defendant: Malidani Jewelry Corp.
-
- Court/Case: S.D.N.Y., 1:25-cv-06284, filed July 30, 2025
-
- Accused products: LOOKALIKES of Cartier LOVE and Juste un Clou, VCA Alhambra
-
- Price points alleged: $1,500–$9,000 range (e.g., LOVE $2,800, Juste un Clou $3,900, Alhambra $3,900–$6,000)
-
- Relief sought: Injunction, statutory damages up to $2M per mark, profits, fees, disclosure of supply chain.
How Lex Bangkok can help
If your business designs, sources, or resells jewelry, watches, or fashion accessories, our team can:
– Assess trade dress and trademark risk in product lines
– Draft supplier contracts with robust IP warranties and indemnities
– Build takedown and evidence-preservation workflows for marketplaces
– Advise on cross-border enforcement and settlement strategy
Contact us to schedule a consultation