In February 2026, luxury jewelry maker David Yurman Enterprises LLC (“David Yurman”) filed a copyright infringement complaint against The TJX Companies Inc. (“TJX”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While David Yurman is well-known for designing luxury jewelry, watches, and accessories, TJX is the parent company of the discount retailers T.J. Maxx and Marshalls. According to the complaint, TJX sold jewelry at its stores that allegedly copied the distinctive cable and sculpted cable designs which David Yurman holds registered copyrights. A listing of registered copyrights relating to David Yurman’s cable pieces can be found here in the US and here in Canada.
David Yurman argues that its designs “bear distinctive and original elements and features that have become synonymous with the DAVID YURMAN brand…” and argues that these dupes are indistinguishable from its authentic products. While various TJX stores sell non-luxury items, many do also offer discounted luxury items, which further leads to confusion amongst consumers. David Yurman’s filing seeks various forms of relief, including a court injunction to stop further sales of the infringing items, monetary damages, and an order requiring TJX to destroy remaining inventory of the copied jewelry.
While trademark protection has been at the core of various luxury brand disputes, this case focuses on copyright protection for artistic expression in jewelry design. Yurman argues that its sculptural cable designs are original works of creative expression that qualify for copyright protection. The complaint further cites instances of consumers sharing on social media their “David Yurman finds”, further emphasizing the close similarity between the products and risk for confusion amongst consumers.
By targeting a major discount retailer like TJX, David Yurman’s latest lawsuit highlights the company’s broader strategy of policing its intellectual property across the marketplace, including at established brick-and-mortar retailers. The outcome of this case will likely be watched closely by designers and retailers alike, as it may influence the scope of copyright protection with respect to preserving design exclusivity in an industry where imitation products and the “dupe economy” continue to grow.