Richemont International SA, the Swiss luxury group behind Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, has launched a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Malidani Jewelry Corp., a New York-based jeweller. Filed on July 30, 2025, under the case number 1:25-cv-06284, the action targets not the familiar world of cheaply made counterfeits, but what the industry increasingly describes as “superfakes”, products so close to the originals in design and execution that they can compete directly with genuine pieces.
Richemont’s complaint names some of its most iconic creations as the subjects of infringement: Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou bracelets, along with Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra collection. While the case focuses squarely on its (very) successful jewelry segment, this is in my view also relevant to their approach to superfakes in the watch world, that other large segment in their portfolio. Especially since they aim directly at the full supply chain involved in this scheme. Details below.
In this case, the alleged copies are not priced to signal illegitimacy; they are sold for thousands of dollars, often between $2,800 and $9,000, placing them in the same territory as authentic retail prices. That positioning, according to Richemont, makes them a direct threat not only to sales, but to the very foundation of consumer trust in the brand. Personally, this gives me flashbacks to the recent Labubu trend, we unfortunately also purchased one or two “superfakes” (lol) at retail price for some of our favorite tiny humans. Everything, including the price and location, signalled these were legitimate… in the end they turned out to be fake anyway as pointed out by those same fantastic tiny humans that received them. Horror by any other name… Also, please make this trend go away…
The alleged infringing pieces use quality materials, polished finishes, and production standards that bring them close enough to genuine items to deceive even trained eyes in certain contexts. This poses a different kind of problem for brands. An obvious fake may actually reinforce the status of an authentic product by signalling its desirability. A convincing imitation, however, can pass through the secondary market undetected, undermining confidence in all transactions involving that brand.
Richemont is asking the court for a permanent injunction to prevent Malidani from producing or selling the disputed items, as well as statutory damages that in counterfeiting cases can reach up to $2 million per infringed mark. The company is also seeking an order to compel Malidani to disclose its suppliers and distribution channels. This measure is designed not only to address past sales but to disrupt the supply chain and prevent future production of such items. The request for supplier disclosure is a reminder that brand protection litigation often has an intelligence-gathering function, enabling companies to map and target the broader networks that make such goods possible.
The alleged rise of the superfake market owes much to advances in manufacturing. In some cases, the same workshops that produce legitimate luxury goods, or their components, are capable of producing unauthorised copies that rival the originals in quality. I suspect the same may be true for my favorite tiny humans’ Labubus… The cost difference between the two may lie less in materials and workmanship than in the absence of the brand’s retail and marketing infrastructure. The resulting products can be offered at prices high enough to avoid the suspicion that comes with bargains, while still undercutting official channels enough to attract customers.
At the same time, there has been a perceptible shift in consumer attitudes toward such goods. Some buyers knowingly choose high-quality imitations as an alternative to paying full price for an official product, while others may not realise they are purchasing a counterfeit at all. In either case, the effect on the brand is the same: a dilution of exclusivity and an erosion of the aura that justifies premium pricing. For heritage-driven houses such as Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, that aura is an essential part of the product’s value proposition.
Richemont has a long record of aggressive intellectual property enforcement, but this case reflects an evolution in focus. Rather than directing resources toward stopping low-value counterfeits that are unlikely to be confused with authentic products, the company is aiming at sellers of near substitutes, which it sees as a more serious competitive and reputational threat. This shift is consistent with broader industry strategies that combine legal action with technological measures, such as the Aura Blockchain Consortium’s digital certification system. These technologies create a verifiable chain of authenticity from production to sale, but they cannot prevent the physical existence of convincing copies. For that, court action remains an indispensable tool.
For collectors and buyers in the watch and jewellery sectors, the case serves as a warning. Purchasing from authorised dealers, or from sellers who can produce complete documentation including receipts, certificates, and service records, is now critical. Even professional authentication services can be fooled by the best imitations, making a solid paper trail essential. This is especially true in the resale market, where a superfake priced close to retail might pass casual scrutiny far more easily than a suspiciously cheap copy.
The next stages of the case will determine how the allegations are tested. Malidani will have the opportunity to respond to the complaint, after which the process of evidence exchange, expert examination, and possible settlement discussions will begin. Such proceedings can stretch over many months. If the matter proceeds to trial and Richemont prevails, the decision could strengthen the legal position of luxury brands in the United States against high-quality counterfeits, confirming that the degree of similarity and the intent to compete directly with authentic goods are sufficient grounds for strong remedies. Conversely, if Malidani were to succeed in its defence, it might suggest that U.S. law is less equipped to deal with counterfeits that are difficult to distinguish from the real thing without highly technical examination.
Beyond its immediate legal and financial implications, the case represents a test of how effectively a major luxury group can defend its products in a market where the gap between authentic and imitation has narrowed to the point of near invisibility. As the industry watches closely, the outcome may influence how other brands choose to respond to the growing challenge posed by superfakes, not just in jewellery & watches but across the broader world of high-end goods.
Richemont International SA et al. v. Malidani Jewelry Corp