The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court by Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and other brands owned by Paris-based Kering seeking damages and an injunction for alleged violations of trademark and racketeering laws.

The lawsuit alleged that Alibaba had conspired to manufacture, offer for sale and traffic in counterfeit products bearing their trademarks without their permission.

A spokesman for Alibaba, Bob Christie, said in a statement: “We continue to work in partnership with numerous brands to help them protect their intellectual property, and we have a strong track record of doing so. Unfortunately, Kering Group has chosen the path of wasteful litigation instead of the path of constructive cooperation. We believe this complaint has no basis and we will fight it vigorously.”

Concerns over fake products on Alibaba’s platforms, including online marketplace Taobao, have dogged it for years, although the U.S. Trade Representative removed Taobao from its list of “notorious markets” in 2012 in light of progress made.

Friday’s lawsuit marked the second time in less than a year that the Kering brands have sued Alibaba over the alleged sale of counterfeit products.

An earlier lawsuit was filed in July only to be withdrawn the same month with the ability to refile it while the Kering units worked toward a resolution with Alibaba, according to court records.

The lawsuit alleged that Alibaba and its related entities “provide the marketplace advertising and other essential services necessary for counterfeiters to sell their counterfeit products to customers in the United States.”

The lawsuit cited, for example, alleged fake Gucci bags offered for $2 to $5 each by a Chinese merchant to buyers seeking at least 2,000 units. The authentic Gucci bag retails for $795, the complaint said.

Alibaba has allowed counterfeit sales to continue even when it had been expressly informed that merchants were selling fake products, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit seeks a court order that, among other things, would block Alibaba from offering or facilitating the sale of counterfeit products, along with unspecified damages that could include $2 per counterfeit item.

The case is Gucci America Inc v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-03784.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Editing by Christian Plumb and Frances Kerry)

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

A U.S. government lawyer faced tough questioning in an appeals court on Monday as he sought to defend a judge’s ruling that Apple conspired with five publishers to raise e-book prices.

In arguments before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, some judges appeared sympathetic to Apple’s contention that it engaged in pro-competitive conduct when in 2010 it entered an e-books market largely dominated by Amazon. Amazon at the time had a 90 percent market share.

Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs asked a Department of Justice lawyer why it was wrong for the publishers to get together to defeat a “monopolist” that was using “predatory pricing.”

“It’s like the mice getting together to put a bell on the cat,” Jacobs said.

Malcolm Stewart, the Justice Department lawyer, replied that no publisher on its own would have entered into the deals with Apple unless they were conspiring to drive up e-book prices.

“It was to combat the public perception that books are only worth so much,” Stewart said.

The appeal followed a 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote that Apple played a “central role” in a conspiracy with publishers to eliminate retail price competition and raise e-book prices.

The government said the scheme caused some e-book prices to rise to $12.99 or $14.99 from the $9.99 that Amazon charged.

The publishers include Lagardere’s Hachette Book Group, News Corp.’s HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Group, CBS’ Simon & Schuster and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck’s Macmillan.

Apple has denied wrongdoing and argues that its entry into the e-books market actually helped push e-books prices on average down overall.

“We think the conduct here was innovative and pro-competitive,” Theodore Boutrous, Apple’s lawyer, argued Monday.

If Apple wins the appeal, it could jeopardize a related $450 million settlement among Apple, 33 attorneys general and lawyers for a class of consumers.

Some judges appeared open to Apple’s arguments.

Circuit Judge Debra Livingston, for example, called it “troubling” that Apple’s contracts with the publishers that normally would be “perfectly legal” had been subject to allegations of a scheme.

On Monday, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan also asked the court to reverse an injunction Cote entered against Apple that they said imposed restraints on them beyond those provided in the publishers’ related settlements with the Justice Department.

The case is U.S. v. Apple Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-3741.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Editing by Grant McCool)

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

A U.S. judge on Thursday expressed concern over a proposed $450 million settlement of claims Apple conspired with five publishers to fix e-book prices, saying its provisions could drastically reduce money paid to consumers depending on appeals.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said she found “most troubling” a clause requiring Apple to pay only $70 million if an appeals court reversed her finding that the company is liable for antitrust violations and sent it back to her for further proceedings.

Speaking on a teleconference, Cote questioned if that would be fair and what might happen if the appeals court reversed her ruling on a minor issue. She also took issue with the lack of any requirement for Apple to pay interest while the appeals go forward.

“I’m concerned about the terms of the settlement,” she said.

The comments came a week after 33 U.S. states and territories and lawyers for a class of consumers submitted the settlement for Cote’s preliminary approval, and to avoid a scheduled Aug. 25 damages trial.

Cote scheduled the trial after ruling last July that Apple was liable for colluding with publishers to impede e-book competitors such as Amazon.

The publishers include Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Book Group Inc, News Corp.’s HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Penguin Group (USA), CBS Corp.’s Simon & Schuster and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH’s Macmillan.

Cote’s ruling came in an April 2012 lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice and the state attorneys general.

These plaintiffs were expected to seek up to $840 million in damages but reached settlements in which the publishers would provide $166 million to e-book purchasers, reducing Apple’s exposure to $674 million.

The size of the Apple settlement depends on the outcome of the company’s appeal of Cote’s liability finding to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

If Apple loses its appeal, it would pay $400 million to consumers and $50 million to the state’s and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

In contrast, if Apple’s appeal is successful but the Second Circuit returns the case to Cote for further proceedings or a new trial, the company would pay just $70 million, with $50 million for consumers. If the Second Circuit reversed Cote outright and ended the case, Apple would pay nothing.

On Thursday’s call, Cote expressed concern that the middle scenario might be unfair to consumers by undervaluing their claims.

Steve Berman, a lawyer for the consumers, told her that such an outcome would result in a “much bleaker universe” for his clients.

“We thought given that unlikely scenario and the legal risk we would face it would be a good outcome for consumers,” he said.

After the call ended, Berman said the parties would consider Cote’s concerns. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is In Re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 11-md-02293.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.