Pandora Jewelry Lawsuit: Copyright, Try-On, and Employment Suits

Pandora Jewelry is currently facing a copyright infringement lawsuit from the New York fine jewelry brand Foundrae, an active biometric privacy class action in Illinois over its Virtual Try-On feature, and a small cluster of employment and consumer suits in federal courts. The copyright case, filed in February 2026 in Manhattan, is the most consequential of the group and could reshape how independent designers protect medallion and charm designs against mass-market imitators.

Foundrae’s Copyright Suit Over the Talisman Collection

Cemayla, LLC, which operates the fine jewelry brand Foundrae, sued Pandora Jewelry LLC and its Danish parent Pandora A/S on February 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.¹ Foundrae alleges that Pandora’s Talisman Collection, released in August 2025, infringes its copyright-protected medallion designs by copying their “look, feel, and symbolism.”²

Two Pandora pieces are singled out. The complaint says Pandora’s “Crossing Arrows” and “Sun and Moon” medallions were “copied nearly verbatim” from Foundrae originals, with the Sun and Moon piece allegedly drawn from Foundrae’s “Balance” medallion, copyrighted in 2023. Foundrae also accuses Pandora of mimicking its “collage-style, mood board approach” to marketing and store merchandising.²

The price contrast sits at the center of the dispute. Foundrae medallions are 18-karat gold with natural diamonds and start at $3,600 for the smallest size. Pandora’s Talisman pieces are sterling silver with 14-karat gold plating and retail from roughly $68 to $185.²³

Foundrae wants a jury trial, a permanent injunction against continued sales, and a full recall of the Talisman collection from Pandora’s stores and website. It is also asking the court to order seizure and destruction of infringing inventory, and to award actual damages, statutory damages, and disgorgement of Pandora’s profits.⁴

Pandora’s Motion to Dismiss

Pandora responded on April 20, 2026, moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).⁵ Its argument is that celestial imagery, crossed arrows, and circular medallion shapes are public-domain elements that cannot be copyrighted. Once those unprotectable pieces are filtered out, Pandora says, whatever remains of Foundrae’s copyright is “thin,” meaning Foundrae would have to show “virtual identity” rather than just substantial similarity. Pandora called the suit an attempt to claim an “improper monopoly over commonplace designs.”⁶

Foundrae’s Opposition and Current Status

Foundrae filed its opposition on May 4, 2026. It argues that Pandora is improperly dissecting the designs into isolated symbols instead of judging the “total concept and feel” of how those symbols were selected, coordinated, and arranged.⁵

As of mid-2026, the court had not ruled on the motion, discovery had not started, and no trial date was set.⁷ If the case survives dismissal, discovery could open Pandora’s internal design process to scrutiny.

Where Jewelry Copyright Draws the Line

Jewelry designs can be registered as “sculptural works,” but only the artistic elements that separate from functional parts like clasps and settings receive protection. Common shapes and symbols in the public domain cannot be monopolized by a single designer.⁸

Two prior rulings frame the range. In Van Cleef & Arpels v. Landau Jewelry, a New York federal court held that the Alhambra necklace was copyrightable even though it used a common clover shape, because the designer had “recast and arranged” familiar elements originally. In Todd v. Montana Silversmiths, barbed wire jewelry was denied protection for lacking creative originality beyond the look of actual barbed wire.⁸

Suns, moons, and arrows have appeared in jewelry for centuries. The open question is whether Foundrae’s particular arrangement of those symbols crosses into protectable expression, or whether the elements are generic enough that Pandora could arrive at similar pieces independently.⁵

The Illinois Virtual Try-On Class Action

A separate case, Gielow v. Pandora Jewelry LLC et al. (No. 22CH1181), was filed on November 15, 2022, in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois. It targets Pandora’s Virtual Try-On feature, a website tool that uses a smartphone camera to show customers how jewelry would look on them.⁹

The tool runs on third-party software from yRuler, Inc., which operates Tangiblee.com. According to the complaint, activating the feature on a phone triggers a camera-access prompt, and the site then collects facial biometric data including facial geometry, features, and expressions to place jewelry over the image.⁹

Plaintiff Diane Gielow says Pandora violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by:

Capturing biometric data without express written consent from users.
Failing to disclose in writing the specific purpose of the collection and how long the data would be stored.
Failing to publish a publicly available retention and destruction policy for biometric information.
Omitting biometric collection from its privacy policy entirely, and not giving users a chance to review that policy before the camera activated.⁹

The proposed class covers Illinois residents whose biometric data was captured through Pandora’s site within the limitations period. Gielow is seeking a jury trial, injunctive relief, and statutory damages.¹⁰ The complaint notes that Pandora had already disabled the try-on feature for devices identified as being in Illinois before the suit was filed, while leaving it live elsewhere.⁹ The case remained active as of early 2026.

Employment and Consumer Suits

Bradley v. Pandora Jewelry (Employment Discrimination)

Taylor Bradley filed a Title VII employment discrimination suit against Pandora Jewelry LLC on August 26, 2025, in the Southern District of New York. The case was referred to mediation in October 2025, the mediation conference was later adjourned, and on February 3, 2026, Judge Denise L. Cote signed an order of discontinuance dismissing the case without costs.¹¹ The dismissal was without prejudice initially, with a March 6, 2026 deadline to apply for restoration; absent that, it would convert to a dismissal with prejudice.¹²

Smith v. Pandora Jewelry (Wrongful Termination)

Jessica Smith sued Pandora Jewelry Inc. for wrongful termination in Spokane County Superior Court in Washington. Pandora removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Smith’s motion to remand was withdrawn, and on August 29, 2025, the parties voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice by stipulation, with no fees or costs awarded.¹³

Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale (TCPA Text Messages)

In October 2017, Katiria Ramos filed a class action in the Southern District of Florida against Pandora Jewelry, LLC and Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC, which operated as “Pandora @ Galleria.” The suit alleged unsolicited telemarketing texts in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, citing two specific messages sent from a short code. Ramos sought up to $1,500 per violation in statutory damages, with aggregate damages projected to exceed $5 million.¹⁴

1
PacerMonitor. Cemayla LLC v. Pandora Jewelry LLC et al
2
National Jeweler. Foundrae Sues Pandora for Allegedly Copying Its Medallion Designs
3
Elle Canada. Pandora Talisman Charms You’ll Want to Style All Season
4
IDEX Online. FoundRae Sues Pandora Over Medallion Designs
5
The Fashion Law. Foundrae Urges Court to Keep Pandora Jewelry Copyright Case in Play
6
The Fashion Law. Pandora Challenges the Limits of Copyright in Foundrae Jewelry Case
7
The Fashion Law. Cemayla v. Pandora Jewelry Case Documentation
8
Copyright Alliance. How Jewelry Is Protected by Copyright
9
ClassAction.org. Gielow v. Pandora Jewelry LLC et al
10
Top Class Actions. Pandora Class Action Claims Virtual Try-On Tool Compromises Facial Data
11
CourtListener. Bradley v. Pandora Jewelry LLC
12
PacerMonitor. Bradley v. Pandora Jewelry LLC
13
PacerMonitor. Smith v. Pandora Jewelry Inc
14
ClassAction.org. Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale