Bulgari Takes Aim at Online Counterfeit Sellers in New Trademark Lawsuit

Luxury jewelry brand Bulgari is taking legal action against online sellers it accuses of using its trademarks to sell counterfeit products. On October 8, 2026, the Italian luxury company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, targeting multiple e-commerce businesses allegedly selling unauthorized goods under the Bulgari name.

The lawsuit highlights an ongoing challenge for luxury brands and online retailers: counterfeit products can reach consumers through digital storefronts that appear legitimate, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish authorized merchandise from imitations.

For businesses selling products online, the case also provides an opportunity to understand how trademark enforcement works and why protecting a brand involves more than simply registering a name.

What Is Bulgari Alleging in Its Trademark Lawsuit?

Bulgari, founded in Rome in 1884, has spent more than a century building its reputation in luxury jewelry, watches, and accessories. Its distinctive BVLGARI branding has become closely associated with the company's products, and the business maintains numerous U.S. trademark registrations covering its brand names, logos, and product lines.

According to the complaint, several online sellers have been advertising, distributing, and offering products bearing counterfeit or infringing versions of Bulgari's registered trademarks without authorization.

Bulgari alleges that these sellers operate through multiple online storefronts, using different seller names to conceal their identities and make their operations more difficult to trace.

The company also claims that the defendants have targeted consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois, by accepting payments in U.S. dollars and offering shipping to American customers.

Rather than pursuing a single seller, Bulgari has filed its complaint against the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified in an accompanying Schedule A.

This type of litigation is commonly referred to as a Schedule A lawsuit, in which a brand owner names multiple online sellers as defendants in a single action.

The complaint alleges that the defendants' activities are sufficiently related to justify pursuing them together. Whether those allegations are established will depend on the litigation.

How Are Online Sellers Allegedly Using Bulgari's Trademarks?

One of the more interesting aspects of the complaint is how Bulgari describes the marketing strategies allegedly used by counterfeit sellers.

According to Bulgari, some defendants operate sophisticated online storefronts that resemble authorized retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers. These websites may feature professional product photography, familiar branding, and descriptions designed to make consumers believe they are purchasing genuine merchandise.

The complaint also addresses how sellers allegedly use search engine optimization techniques to attract customers.

Bulgari claims that certain defendants incorporate its trademarks into website content, product descriptions, and metadata to appear in searches for authentic Bulgari products.

Other sellers allegedly avoid placing the brand name directly in product titles while using alternative descriptions that still allow their listings to appear in relevant search results.

This distinction matters because trademark infringement is not necessarily limited to placing a recognizable logo on a counterfeit product. Depending on the circumstances, the unauthorized use of a trademark in advertising or marketing can also create legal issues when it is likely to confuse consumers about a product's source, sponsorship, or affiliation.

However, using another company's trademark in online content is not automatically infringement. Context matters, particularly when businesses are accurately describing genuine products, making lawful comparisons, or otherwise using a mark in a manner permitted by trademark law.

The central issue in Bulgari's complaint is whether the defendants are using its trademarks to mislead consumers into believing that unauthorized products originate from, or are approved by, Bulgari.

Why Bulgari Is Using a Schedule A Lawsuit

Counterfeit sellers can be difficult to identify, particularly when they operate across multiple marketplaces or jurisdictions.

Bulgari alleges that some defendants use multiple seller aliases and financial accounts to avoid detection and continue operating after enforcement actions.

The complaint further claims that sellers may establish additional storefronts in anticipation of existing accounts being suspended or removed.

These allegations illustrate why traditional enforcement methods may not always be sufficient to address online counterfeiting.

A marketplace complaint might result in the removal of a particular listing, but that action does not necessarily prevent a seller from attempting to sell similar products through another account or platform.

Schedule A litigation offers brand owners a way to pursue multiple allegedly infringing sellers through a single federal lawsuit. Depending on the evidence and the court's rulings, these cases can also involve requests for injunctions, restrictions on marketplace activity, and monetary relief.

However, grouping multiple defendants into one lawsuit raises important legal questions, including whether the claims against those sellers are sufficiently connected and whether the court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant.

These considerations are particularly important for international e-commerce businesses that may sell to U.S. consumers without maintaining a physical presence in the country.

What Trademarks Is Bulgari Trying to Protect?

The lawsuit identifies numerous federally registered trademarks associated with Bulgari's luxury products.

Among the marks identified in the complaint are:

• BULGARI and BVLGARI, the company's primary brand names.

• B.ZERO1, associated with its jewelry collection.

• SERPENTI, one of the company's recognizable product lines.

• DIVAS' DREAM, another jewelry collection.

• FIOREVER, a name used in connection with Bulgari products.

The complaint also identifies additional word marks, stylized logos, and design marks.

This collection of registrations demonstrates how established businesses can build trademark portfolios that extend beyond their primary company names.

A trademark portfolio may include product names, collection names, logos, and other distinctive elements that consumers associate with a particular source.

For entrepreneurs developing their own brands, this is an important distinction. A business may begin by registering its company name, but as it introduces new products or services, additional trademarks may become valuable parts of its intellectual property strategy.

Not every product name or design automatically qualifies for trademark protection. The mark must satisfy applicable legal requirements, including functioning as an identifier of the source of goods or services.

What Is Bulgari Asking the Court to Do?

Bulgari's complaint includes two claims under the Lanham Act, the federal law governing trademarks and certain forms of unfair competition.

The first claim alleges trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Bulgari argues that the defendants have used infringing and counterfeit versions of its registered trademarks in connection with unauthorized products.

The second claim alleges false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This claim focuses on whether the defendants' conduct creates confusion about the origin, sponsorship, approval, or affiliation of the products being sold.

Through the lawsuit, Bulgari is requesting several forms of relief.

The company seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions to prevent the defendants from continuing the allegedly infringing activities. It also requests orders that would require online marketplaces with notice of an injunction to disable advertisements associated with the sale of infringing products.

Bulgari additionally seeks monetary relief, including the defendants' profits and damages. As an alternative, the complaint requests statutory damages of $2 million for each use of the BVLGARI trademarks involving willful counterfeiting.

That figure is a requested remedy, not an amount awarded by the court. Under federal trademark law, statutory damages for willful counterfeiting can reach $2 million per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

The company also requests attorneys' fees and costs.

At this stage, these are allegations and requests made by Bulgari. The filing of the complaint does not establish that the defendants are liable or that the requested remedies will be granted.

What Does This Lawsuit Mean for E-Commerce Sellers?

Although Bulgari is a globally recognized luxury company, the legal issues raised by its complaint extend to businesses of many sizes.

Online marketplaces have made it easier for entrepreneurs to reach customers around the world, but they have also created new challenges involving trademark ownership, product authenticity, and brand enforcement.

For sellers, understanding the distinction between genuine products, unauthorized use of trademarks, and counterfeit goods is essential.

Selling a genuine branded product without being an authorized retailer does not automatically constitute trademark infringement. Under the first-sale doctrine, businesses may generally resell genuine trademarked goods under certain circumstances.

However, that protection may not apply when products are materially different from authorized goods or when other circumstances create a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Similarly, sellers should exercise caution when using another company's trademarks in product listings, advertisements, or storefront branding. Even when a product does not physically display a protected logo, the way it is marketed can raise trademark concerns.

For brand owners, the lawsuit reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate trademark registrations, monitoring online marketplaces, and documenting potential infringement.

A registered trademark can provide important legal advantages, but registration alone does not automatically remove counterfeit listings or prevent unauthorized sellers from entering the market.

Effective brand protection often requires ongoing enforcement efforts tailored to the business and the platforms where its products are sold.

Protecting Your Brand Beyond Trademark Registration

Bulgari's latest lawsuit demonstrates how trademark protection and e-commerce enforcement increasingly intersect.

A recognizable brand can be one of a company's most valuable assets, but that recognition can also attract counterfeiters and other businesses seeking to benefit from an established reputation.

Whether a company sells luxury jewelry, consumer electronics, clothing, or everyday household products, maintaining control over how its trademarks are used can be an important part of protecting consumer trust.

For entrepreneurs, the goal is not simply to register a trademark and move on. It is to develop a broader strategy that accounts for how the brand will grow, where its products will be sold, and how potential infringement will be addressed.

At Stockman & Poropat, PLLC, we work with entrepreneurs and businesses navigating trademark registration, intellectual property enforcement, and e-commerce disputes. Whether you're protecting a growing brand or responding to a trademark infringement claim, understanding your rights is an important first step.

Contact our team to learn more about how we can help protect your business.

Source

Bulgari, S.p.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1:26-cv-12382, Complaint, filed October 8, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.