The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, condemned nine individuals for selling counterfeit goods through online websites[1], using Diesel’s trademark in their domain names without authorization of the Italian company. The defendants were accused of: counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (a), 1125 (c); cybersquatting under the   Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C § 1125 (d, 1) and trademark infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and deceptive acts and practices under N.Y. General Business Law §§ 349, 350, 360 – 1 and the common law of the State of New York.  

The defendants were “permanently enjoined from:

  • Using any Diesel trademark or any reproduction counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof in connection with any sale or advertisement of goods or their packaging not authorized by Diesel;
  • Manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, or displaying any products or packaging not authorized by Diesel that bear the Diesel trademark or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or  colorable imitation thereof;
  • using any false description, representation, or designation of origin, or making any statements or performing any act tending to falsely describe or represent Defendants’ unauthorized goods as being those of Diesel, or sponsored by or associated with Diesel, or to falsely suggest that such goods are sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, approved, or authorized by Diesel;
  • engaging in acts that constitute trademark infringement, counterfeiting, dilution, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, or unfair competition under the laws of the United States and the State of New York and that would damage or injure Plaintiff’s business reputation or damage or dilute the value of Plaintiff’s trademarks;
  • destroying, altering, removing, or secreting any unauthorized products that infringe or dilute Diesel’s trademarks, or any books or records pertaining to such products, or to the importation, manufacture, production, distribution, sale, marketing, promotion, or display thereof; and
  • effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations, or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in the Order.”

The Court also awarded Diesel with $ 2 million, encompassing statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.  

Court Decision:

Diesel’s E-commerce website:

Photos: Diesel, 2016-2017 Fall Winter Collection

[1] For example at,, and