Swarovski is once again turning to federal court as part of its efforts to combat allegedly counterfeit products sold through online marketplaces.
Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft and Swarovski North America Limited filed a new Schedule A lawsuit on September 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” Case No. 1:26-cv-11352, targets multiple e-commerce sellers accused of using Swarovski's trademarks to advertise and sell unauthorized products.
Read the full complaint: Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft et al. v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A (PDF)
For sellers who follow Schedule A litigation, the lawsuit may sound familiar. This is not the first Swarovski enforcement action we have covered. In July 2025, we reported on another lawsuit in which Swarovski accused online sellers of offering counterfeit products bearing its trademarks.
Read our previous coverage here: Swarovski Trademark Infringement Action | E-Commerce Operators Sued Over Counterfeit Allegations
The newest lawsuit provides another example of Swarovski continuing to actively enforce its trademark portfolio against online sellers.
What Does Swarovski Allege in the New Lawsuit?
According to the complaint, Swarovski alleges that the defendants operate e-commerce stores under various seller aliases and offer products using counterfeit or infringing versions of its federally registered trademarks.
The company claims that these sellers target consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois, by operating online stores that accept U.S. dollars, offer shipping into the United States, and allegedly sell unauthorized Swarovski-branded products.
Swarovski describes the products at issue as “Unauthorized Products” and alleges that the defendants are trading on the company's reputation and goodwill by advertising and selling products bearing infringing or counterfeit versions of its trademarks.
Importantly, these remain allegations contained in Swarovski's complaint. The filing of the lawsuit does not itself establish that an individual defendant committed trademark infringement or counterfeiting.
Swarovski Is Continuing an Existing Enforcement Strategy
The timing of this case is particularly noteworthy because Swarovski has pursued similar litigation before.
In July 2025, Swarovski filed Case No. 1:25-cv-08024 in the Northern District of Illinois. That lawsuit similarly targeted online sellers accused of selling products using counterfeit versions of Swarovski's federally registered trademarks.
Now, approximately fourteen months later, Swarovski has filed another action following a similar Schedule A enforcement model.
The latest complaint expressly states that Swarovski maintains a worldwide anti-counterfeiting program and regularly investigates suspicious online stores through proactive internet sweeps and reports from consumers. Swarovski claims those investigations have identified numerous e-commerce stores offering unauthorized products.
In other words, this lawsuit does not appear in isolation. It is another example of Swarovski using federal litigation as part of a broader online trademark enforcement strategy.
What Swarovski Trademarks Are Involved?
Swarovski's complaint identifies a substantial portfolio of U.S. trademark registrations.
These include registrations covering the SWAROVSKI name as well as marks such as CRYSTALDUST, DULCIS, LUCENT, MATRIX, ORBITA, POINTIAGE, SPARKLING DANCE, XERO, XILION, and WONDERLAB. The complaint also identifies multiple versions of Swarovski's well-known swan design marks.
Swarovski alleges that these trademarks are valuable assets associated with its jewelry, figurines, accessories, packaging, retail services, and e-commerce operations.
This broad portfolio matters because a seller does not necessarily have to use only the word SWAROVSKI to encounter an infringement allegation. Brand enforcement can involve word marks, logos, product branding, packaging, listing content, and other uses of registered trademarks.
How Does Swarovski Say the Sellers Operate?
Like many Schedule A complaints, Swarovski's lawsuit focuses heavily on the way allegedly infringing sellers operate online.
The company alleges that defendants use multiple seller aliases to make their operations more difficult to identify. According to Swarovski, sellers may establish additional storefronts and accounts to continue operating if another storefront is discovered or removed.
The complaint also alleges that some stores are designed to appear like authorized retailers, wholesalers, or outlets. Swarovski claims that certain storefronts use content and design elements that can make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from Swarovski or an authorized retailer. Swarovski states that it has not authorized the defendants to use its trademarks and that the defendants are not authorized retailers.
The allegations extend beyond what consumers immediately see on a product page. Swarovski claims that some defendants use its trademarks in website content, text, or metadata to appear in searches for Swarovski products. The complaint also alleges that other sellers deliberately avoid placing the Swarovski name in a product title while using titles or descriptions designed to appear when consumers search for Swarovski products.
What Is Swarovski Asking the Court to Do?
Swarovski is seeking significant relief against the defendants.
The company asks the court to prohibit defendants from using the Swarovski trademarks in connection with unauthorized products and to prevent further advertising, distribution, sale, or movement of allegedly infringing inventory.
Swarovski also asks that online marketplace platforms, upon request and with notice of an injunction, be required to disable advertisements associated with defendants' alleged sales of counterfeit or infringing goods.
The complaint seeks defendants' profits, damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Alternatively, Swarovski requests statutory damages for willful trademark counterfeiting of up to $2 million for each use of the Swarovski trademarks, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2).
These are remedies Swarovski is requesting from the court; they are not amounts that have already been awarded against the defendants.
Why Schedule A Lawsuits Matter for Online Sellers
Schedule A lawsuits allow a brand to pursue numerous online sellers within a single federal action rather than filing an individual lawsuit against each storefront.
For an online seller, the first indication that one of these cases exists may come after their business has already been disrupted. Depending on what the court orders in a particular case, sellers can encounter frozen marketplace funds, restrictions on their accounts, disabled listings, or notices from an online marketplace regarding pending litigation.
We explain the process in greater detail in our guide: What Is a Schedule A Lawsuit? A Guide for Amazon Sellers
Swarovski's newest filing is another reminder that major brands continue to use Schedule A litigation as part of their online intellectual property enforcement efforts.
Named in the New Swarovski Schedule A Lawsuit?
If you operate an Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, AliExpress, or other e-commerce storefront and received notice that your store has been named in a Schedule A lawsuit, it is important to determine exactly what case was filed, what allegations have been made against your storefront, and whether the court has entered any orders affecting your accounts or funds.
The new Swarovski case is Case No. 1:26-cv-11352, filed September 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Stockman & Poropat, PLLC represents e-commerce sellers facing Schedule A lawsuits, trademark infringement allegations, frozen marketplace funds, and other intellectual property disputes.
Contact Stockman & Poropat, PLLC to discuss your situation with an attorney.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Have a question about your matter?
Schedule a free consultation with Stockman & Poropat, PLLC.
Contact the firm
