Last week, the media actively discussed the news that the jewellery house Cartier (owned by Swiss holding company Richemont) had failed to prove that its Love bracelet design had been copied by the Russian jewellery chain Sunlight.
However, the headline should not be taken literally: the court did not examine the dispute on its merits. The claim was filed in 2021 by Cartier International AG, but later the company stated that it was suspending its activities, and Richemont International SA attempted to step in as its legal successor. The appellate court dismissed the appeal: the documents lacked an apostille, and the transfer of rights from Cartier to Richemont was deemed unproven. Formally, Sunlight neither won nor lost – Cartier may refile the claim.
Earlier this year, we shared the success of our colleagues, who managed to defend the rights of the jewellery house Joser in a dispute with the Sunlight chain and proved that the design of their client's jewellery had been copied. The amount of compensation exceeded 17 million roubles.
Disputes over jewellery design are discussed not only in Russia. Today, we will tell you about the two most high-profile international cases in the jewellery industry over the past couple of years.
💍 Richemont (Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels) v. Malidani Jewelry Corp. (2025, New York)
In July 2025, Richemont (Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels) filed a lawsuit against New York jeweller Malidani Jewelry Corp. The case concerns, among other things, the Cartier LOVE bracelet.
Interestingly, Richemont is here fighting the market for high-quality copies ("superfakes"). The defendant sold jewellery at prices ranging from $1,500 to $9,000 (for example, a replica of the LOVE bracelet for $2,800), whereas on Cartier's official website the LOVE bracelet costs around $9,000. In other words, the imitator's price was not extremely low, as is usually the case with fakes.
The defendant's jewellery was not merely similar in design: it was made from high-quality materials and positioned as creations of a jewellery house with its own history, reputation and prestige.
This case clearly shows that the word "counterfeit" is no longer associated only with low-quality copies. When a product is made without the right holder's consent uses the same materials and is of the same quality, but is cheaper than the original, consumers perceive it not as an imitation, but as a direct competitor.
In this context, Richemont's interest lay not so much in protecting the design of the jewellery, but in defending its position in a competitive market and maintaining, in the eyes of consumers, its status as a prestigious and unique jewellery house.
On 7 July 2026, the parties signed a settlement agreement. Its terms effectively confirm Richemont's position: the defendant and all affiliated companies were prohibited from copying, manufacturing, selling, or advertising products with designs identical or similar to those of Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels (Alhambra, LOVE, Juste un Clou and others). In addition, the jeweller was required to pay the holding company compensation in the amount of $205,000.
💍 FoundRae v. Pandora (2026, New York)
In February of this year, FoundRae filed a lawsuit against Pandora, accusing the company of copying the design of two pendant medallions from its "Talismans" collection. In the plaintiff's view, the defendant had unlawfully reproduced key elements of FoundRae's jewellery: celestial imagery (sun and moon), crossed arrows, the round shape of the medallions, and the use of precious metals.
Pandora disagreed with the allegations: in its view, the similarities are limited to well-known symbols (sun, moon, crossed arrows) that have been in the public domain for centuries. No brand has the right to monopolise such basic images, which are unprotected elements.
Pandora insists that the similarities lie precisely in the unprotected realm, and therefore the key role here is played by the test for substantial similarity. The court must filter out unprotected elements (ideas, natural objects, geometric shapes) and compare only the original, protectable part of the design. If, after filtering, only a "thin" protection remains, infringement can be proven only in cases of near-identical copying.
The dispute is far from resolved: in April 2026, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss the claim. If the court finds its arguments persuasive and determines that the complaint lacks sufficient grounds to show a "reasonable likelihood" of infringement, the case will not proceed to trial on the merits.
📍 Both disputes show that conflicts over jewellery design are becoming more complex. In one case, it is about imitation of the design of a prestigious jewellery house with history and reputation. In the other, market participants increasingly disagree on what constitutes copying and what constitutes the use of a common motif — and where the boundary lies. This means that judicial practice on this issue will continue to develop, and we will continue to follow it together with you.