Gucci has been a party to a long line of high-profile lawsuits, ranging from a $115 million civil verdict tied to a family member’s childhood sexual abuse case, a nearly decade-long global trademark war with Guess, repeated legal fights with members of the Gucci family over commercial use of the surname, a counterfeiting suit against Lord & Taylor, a consumer fraud class action over exotic-skin handbags, an EU antitrust fine exceeding €157 million, and an employment discrimination case brought by a longtime sales associate. The cases below are the ones that have shaped the brand’s legal record and, in several instances, fashion law itself.
The $115 Million Alexandra Gucci Zarini Verdict
On September 16, 2025, a Los Angeles jury awarded Alexandra Gucci Zarini, the great-granddaughter of Gucci founder Aldo Gucci, $115 million in a civil sexual abuse case against her stepfather, former entertainment manager Joseph Ruffalo.1Beverly Press. Jury Awards Gucci Heiress $115 Million The award included $85 million in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages.2Dordick Law. $115 Million Verdict Alexandra Gucci Zarini vs Patricia Gucci and Joseph Ruffalo
Zarini filed the case in September 2020 under California’s Child Victims Act (AB 218), which Governor Gavin Newsom signed in October 2019. That law opened a three-year window starting January 1, 2020, for survivors to bring previously time-barred childhood sexual assault claims, and it allows up to triple damages where a defendant engaged in a cover-up.3LegiScan. California AB 2184Keenan. AB 218 Expanded Statute of Limitations
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court as Case No. 20STCV34041, named Ruffalo along with Zarini’s mother Patricia Gucci and grandmother Bruna Palombo. It alleged that Ruffalo began sexually assaulting Zarini in 1991, when she was six, and that the abuse continued through her childhood and into young adulthood. The suit further alleged that Patricia Gucci knew about the abuse, was present during at least one assault, and later, along with Palombo, threatened Zarini to keep her from going to police from 2009 through 2019. Patricia Gucci was also accused of physical abuse.5Anderson Advocates. Great-Granddaughter of Gucci Founder Files Child Sexual Assault Lawsuit6Anderson Advocates. Complaint for Damages
Palombo was dismissed before trial after a California appellate court ruled that she was not subject to personal jurisdiction in the state.7CaseMine. Palombo v. Superior Court Patricia Gucci’s portion resolved confidentially in pretrial motions. That left Ruffalo as the sole defendant at trial. His defense argued that Zarini could not have been abused because she showed affection toward him as a child; plaintiff’s counsel Gary A. Dordick, Taylor B. Dordick, and Jilbert Tahmazian countered with expert psychiatric testimony explaining that such behavior is common in abused children.8Flippingbook. Zarini Trial Coverage
Ruffalo was never charged criminally. Zarini chose not to proceed anonymously, and her attorney said she wanted the abuse on the public record to help other survivors come forward. She is also the founder of the Gucci Children’s Foundation, which advocates against child sexual abuse.9USA Today. Child Sexual Abuse House of Gucci Reality Darker Than Movie
The Global Trademark War With Guess
Gucci sued Guess in May 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, calling the case a “massive trademark infringement scheme” involving Guess’s interlocking “G” logo, its Quattro G diamond pattern, a green-red-green stripe on shoes, and a “Square G” design across more than 1,000 product styles.10The Fashion Law. Almost 10 Years Later, Gucci and Guess Make Peace
After a 2012 bench trial before Judge Shira Scheindlin, Guess was found to have infringed the diamond motif in brown and beige colorways, the green-red-green stripe on shoes, and the Square G on three specific products. The court denied Gucci’s counterfeiting claims and awarded $4,613,478 in profits, a small fraction of the $221 million Gucci sought. Guess was permanently enjoined from further use of the three infringing designs, and its Quattro G registration was cancelled as abandoned.11Finnegan. Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess? Inc.
Parallel cases in Italy, France, and the EU General Court largely went against Gucci, with several Gucci trademarks invalidated for lacking distinctiveness. A Chinese court ruled for Gucci but was appealed. In April 2018, the companies reached a global settlement ending all pending IP litigation and trademark office proceedings worldwide. Financial terms were not disclosed.12FashionNetwork. Guess and Gucci Reach Settlement Agreement
Fights Over the Gucci Family Name
Several of the most consequential Gucci trademark cases have been against members of the Gucci family itself.
Paolo Gucci (1988)
In Gucci v. Gucci Shops, Inc., the Southern District of New York barred Paolo Gucci, a grandson of the founder who had been pushed out of the family business, from using “Gucci” or “Paolo Gucci” as a trademark or trade name. The court cited real-world confusion, including customers bringing Paolo-branded goods to Gucci stores for repair.13Justia. Gucci v. Gucci Shops, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 916 Paolo was allowed a narrow carve-out: he could be identified as the designer of products sold under a separate brand, so long as his name appeared less prominently than the actual trademark and a disclaimer stated he was no longer affiliated with any Gucci entity.14The Fashion Law. Gucci and the Ongoing Battles Over the Family Name The ruling became a benchmark in fashion trademark law.
Jennifer and Gemma Gucci (2007–2010)
Gucci America sued Paolo’s widow Jennifer and daughter Gemma in 2007 for licensing the “Gucci” name onto products ranging from bedding to wine through their agent, Edward Litwak. Judge Richard Berman found willful infringement and dilution, holding that the rights granted to Paolo in 1988 were “personal to Paolo Gucci” and could not be inherited. The court called Litwak the “mastermind” of the scheme, pointing to a “Gucci-esque” bedding line with packaging that mimicked the GG mark and a licensing document on which Litwak had forged Gemma’s signature. In December 2010, the court entered damages and fee awards against Jennifer, Gemma, and Litwak, and hit Litwak with an additional $325,000 in punitive damages.15Courthouse News. Gucci Women Infringed on Family Name16Justia. Gucci America, Inc. v. Gucci et al
The $14 Million Lord & Taylor Counterfeiting Suit
In November 2023, Gucci filed a $14 million trademark infringement and counterfeiting lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Lord & Taylor Ecomm LLC, alleging its online platform sold counterfeit Gucci handbags, shoes, and belts in violation of the Lanham Act and the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.17University of Pittsburgh Law Journal. Gucci v. Lord & Taylor Ecomm LLC
Lord & Taylor did not respond to discovery, and the court entered a default judgment for Gucci in August 2024, including a permanent injunction and an order to surrender all counterfeit inventory for destruction. By February 2025, Gucci had returned to court asking that Lord & Taylor be held in civil contempt and that the U.S. Marshals Service be authorized to seize the goods. That contempt motion is still pending.18Fordham Intellectual Property Law Journal. Gucci Escalates Legal Action Against Lord & Taylor
The Exotic Skin Consumer Fraud Class Action
In June 2024, Tracy Cohen, a former Gucci sales associate of nearly 18 years, filed a class action alleging consumer fraud and deceptive practices in the marketing of Gucci’s exotic-skin handbags and accessories. The case, filed in Illinois and removed to the Northern District of Illinois, named Gucci America, Inc. and Kering Americas, Inc.19ClassAction.org. Gucci Lawsuit Alleges Pythons, Crocodiles Treated Inhumanely
Cohen alleged that Gucci trained sales staff to tell customers python skins came from a “natural shedding process” and were a “byproduct of the food industry,” and that animals were sourced ethically. The suit cited a 2023 PETA Asia investigation of Thai farms supplying a Kering-owned tannery, which documented workers hammering live snakes and skinning crocodiles that appeared still alive. Kering argued in briefing that its animal welfare standards were “aspirational” and that “no reasonable consumer” would expect universal compliance.20PETA. Gucci Lies Lawsuit
In October 2024, Judge Jeremy Daniel dismissed Kering Americas for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied Gucci America’s motion to dismiss, finding Cohen had adequately pleaded the deceptive practices claim.21Forbes. Gucci Troubles Mount The parties then filed a stipulation of dismissal on December 19, 2024, and the case was dismissed with prejudice the next day. Terms were not made public.22Court Listener. Cohen v. Gucci America, Inc.
The €157 Million EU Antitrust Fine
On October 14, 2025, the European Commission fined Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe a combined total of more than €157 million for resale price maintenance. The Commission found that Gucci, from April 2015 through April 2023, issued direct pricing instructions to authorized retailers, restricted discounts, limited promotional periods, and penalized retailers who deviated from recommended retail prices. Investigators had raided the brands’ premises in April 2023, and formal proceedings opened in July 2024.23Loyens & Loeff. The European Commission Sanctions Luxury Fashion Brands
The Commission rejected the argument that protecting brand image or luxury positioning justified the pricing restrictions, treating resale price maintenance as a “hardcore restriction” under EU competition law. It noted that although the three brands acted independently, each pursued similar strategies to keep prices coherent and to shield direct sales from retailer competition.23Loyens & Loeff. The European Commission Sanctions Luxury Fashion Brands
The Cohen Employment Discrimination Case
Months before the exotic-skin class action, Tracy Cohen sued Gucci in January 2024 over her own employment. Cohen, who worked at Gucci from 2006 to 2023, alleged unpaid overtime, insults from superiors about her anxiety and depression, and a firing in October 2023 that she said was retaliation for filing complaints with the EEOC and the Illinois human rights department.24The Guardian. Gucci Work Conditions Discrimination Lawsuit
The complaint also raised broader allegations about Gucci’s culture between 2010 and 2022, including “sweatshop conditions” at overseas factories, ignored sexual harassment, pressure on pregnant workers to have abortions, and a requirement that women wear straitjackets on the runway. Cohen sought damages for discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wage violations. The case’s current status is not detailed in available public records.24The Guardian. Gucci Work Conditions Discrimination Lawsuit