Real Gold Cannot Make Counterfeits Legitimate -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

The respectability of counterfeiting will never be based upon whether the gold used in the product was authentic, if the craftsmanship in creating the counterfeit product was superior, or if the person selling the counterfeit product was located in a New York City showroom. An expensive counterfeit can take advantage of your confidence in the same manner that an inexpensive counterfeit can.

Richemont’s fight against Malidani Jewelry shows how dangerous it is.

On July 30th, 2025, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that certain jewelry items were sold using what appeared to be unauthorized use of protected trade names, protected product designs and protected patents. The suit involves alleged unauthorized reproductions of Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou collection pieces and Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra design.

These were said to be highly-detailed copies of products made using quality materials and manufacturing processes. The fact that they had commercial value demonstrates the rationale for high-end counterfeiting: combine expensive materials with an easily identifiable brand, and market the product created to people who are drawn to that connection.

Judge Loretta A. Preska entered a final judgment on consent in the matter of case 1:25-cv-06284 on July 7, 2026. The judgment was for the plaintiffs regarding their claims for trademark counterfeiting, trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition and design patent infringement. In addition, Malidani was ordered to pay $205,000 within five business days, certify the destruction of any remaining infringing inventory within five days and submit photographic/video evidence of such certification within seven days.

The qualifications matter: This was an enforceable agreement reached through a consent judgment, rather than a contested proceeding where the court created new legal principles. As such, the agreement resolved the parties’ specific dispute, but did not create a rule that each clover, nail-shaped bracelet or screw design is the exclusive property of a large luxury company.

However, there can be no mistake about the warning. Gold as a material (the real thing) does not provide proof of authorization, origin or ownership rights to use protected design elements; those are two different issues.

This risk also extends to secondary markets. An item that looks like the real thing may exist long after being sold; can get fake documentation; and finally be bought by a person who thinks it’s the real deal. Therefore, having the ability to track an item will become necessary in order for consumers to know what they are buying at each step of the process.

Luxury brand owners must be aware of their role; that is to protect and maintain the identifiable rights associated with their products and not simply consider any product which resembles theirs as a violation. In addition, the use of intellectual property is intended to encourage innovation, while at the same time, protect consumers from being misled or deceived. It was never intended to give unlimited control over a product’s appearance.

The following five major reforms need to be made.

Jewelers need to perform formal IP clearance reviews prior to the production of any recognizable design. Review of the supplier’s assurance can’t be used as a substitute for conducting review of registered items, patents’ scopes and products’ actual features.

Second, there is a difference between establishing the material of an item (gold assay) and verifying its authenticity as being made by a certain designer or authorized by him/her. A gold assay will determine what materials were used in creating an item, however, it does not prove who designed or authorized the creation of that item.

Third, reliable authentication and provenance of luxury homes is required. Authentic documentation of ownership will enable both legitimate resale as well as independent businesses.

Fourth, enforcement should conduct investigations into the production and distribution channels when there is sufficient cause. While taking a vendor’s stock may provide some level of security against further sales of the product, this protection is reduced significantly if the product can easily find its way back onto the market via another channel.

Fifth, settlement agreements should be based upon documented compliance; commercial record preservation; and, appropriate remedy options for customers. Financial payments will not demonstrate that infringing products are no longer available in the marketplace.

Courts must provide an area for fair competition through non-infringing designs and expired patents. Small business owners should have clear parameters of what is acceptable practice rather than feeling threatened by companies claiming they are protecting their brand.

The main problem is trust: buyers need to understand exactly what it is that they are buying; creators must have the ability to enforce their rights as owners of a product; and, products made with quality craftsmanship should be able to create a name for themselves based upon the merits of their quality.

Premium pricing cannot make up for infringing on another company’s trademarks; a very well-made fake will still be subject to legal action because it uses the name/trademark of a product that has some type of protection (i.e. trademark) which the maker of the fake product does not have permission to use.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia