The Leta jewelry brand has filed a lawsuit against Sunlight, accusing the competitor of copying Leta’s original designs and selling those copies as its own. The action seeks the removal of all replicated Leta pieces from sale, the blocking of imports tied to the copied designs, and compensation of 3.5 million rubles. Journalists can access the case materials at socialbites.ca, offering a window into the dispute between the two brands.
On March 27, 2023, Mikhail Tantsura, the co founder and director of Leta, spoke about the legal move, outlining a demand that Sunlight withdraw all copies from the market, halt imports that carry unauthorized replicas, recall reproduced products from circulation, and destroy counterfeit items. The filing with the Moscow Arbitration Court seeks 3.5 million rubles in compensation for alleged damage from trademark and design misappropriation.
Representatives for Sunlight reportedly did not respond to Leta’s initial inquiries. The silence from Sunlight has been noted by Leta and its supporters, who have continued to discuss the situation across social channels. Leta’s backers reiterate that the allegations concern direct design copying rather than mere inspiration and have amplified the brand’s position online.
Following the first wave of coverage about the plagiarism claims, Leta reports that all links to the allegedly copied jewelry were removed from Sunlight’s official website. This move, according to Tantsura, is part of preparations for a broader presentation of evidence. Leta has preserved a documented history of its sketches and product descriptions, with documents notarized as part of the design development process. The company has also assembled a detailed comparison pairing Leta’s original pieces with Sunlight replicas, intended to illustrate the similarities for the court and for public review.
In discussions with media outlets, Leta’s leadership emphasized accountability when one brand adopts another label’s distinctive designs without authorization. The case underscores the potential consequences of design theft in today’s jewelry market, where fast production cycles and global distribution networks complicate enforcement of intellectual property rights. Leta maintains that its designs are protected by intellectual property standards, and that unauthorized replicas dilute brand value and harm the creator’s reputation. The company’s stance reflects a broader industry pattern of pursuing redress through formal legal channels when design integrity is compromised.
Observers note that the dispute unfolds amid a landscape of international manufacturing and cross border commerce. The jewelry sector often faces challenges in distinguishing authentic pieces from inspired copies, especially as designs cross markets with different regulatory regimes. This case highlights the importance of robust design documentation, timely enforcement actions, and clear communications with customers about product origins and authenticity. The Moscow Arbitration Court proceedings are likely to influence how similar disputes are navigated by other designers and brands confronting copying allegations in the months ahead. The public record, including Leta’s notarized design materials and the evidence assembled by the brand, will be central to the proceedings and to public understanding of the issues involved. Ongoing coverage from fashion and design outlets continues to track responses from both sides as the formal process progresses.