Client advisory – trends in dupes & super-fakes in luxury retail

The dupes and super-fakes market is booming. These designer knockoffs have become ubiquitous – and they are almost indistinguishable from the original designer luxury goods. In response to this flood of dupes and super-fakes in the luxury market, the legal landscape across the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom is rapidly evolving. Below, we outline recent developments and emerging trends in each jurisdiction and consider their implications for luxury businesses.

Dupes vs. Super-Fakes

From a legal standpoint, a clear distinction must be drawn between high-grade counterfeits ("super-fakes") and look-alikes ("dupes"). Dupes are inspired versions of products that do not misrepresent their original.  Super-fakes are ultra-realistic counterfeits that are priced in the mid-luxury range ($ 500-$ 5,000) and are increasingly indistinguishable from the authentic products. There has been a significant increase in the prevalence of dupes and super-fakes in the luxury market in recent years, which has led to consumer tolerance, brand equity erosion, and legal thorniness.

Enthusiasm and misinformation around dupes and super-fakes is spreading rapidly on social media, with dupes and super-fakes being seen as pragmatic and rebellious alternatives to high-priced luxury items. Consumer overexposure to dupes and super-fakes risks degrading the perceived value, scarcity, and exclusivity of authentic luxury products. The prolificity of dupe and super-fake products is also due to fact that they often skirt traditional IP enforcement, especially in jurisdictions that lack strong design rights.

US Legal Trends

Luxury brands are testing trade dress and design patent enforcement routes against dupes and treating super-fakes as direct competitors. Recent cases have garnered significant attention from luxury brands eagerly waiting for a roadmap to successfully combat high-ticket dupe and super-fake products.

U.S. law provides brands with a broad range of tools to combat dupes and super-fakes, relying on trademark, trade dress, and design patent protections, as well as unfair competition and false advertising principles. The Lanham Act prohibits uses of trademarks likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, while trade dress protection extends to the overall look and feel of products and packaging when the design is distinctive and non-functional – making it especially effective against high-fidelity replicas. Design patents offer an additional layer of protection for ornamental product features and are particularly powerful against super-fakes because infringement turns on substantial visual similarity to the patented design. These doctrines allow brands to challenge not only direct copies but also close imitations and misleading marketing that trade on brand goodwill – even when explicit marks aren't copied. As social media and online marketplaces blur the lines between "inspired by" products and deceptive look-alikes, courts increasingly focus on the overall commercial impression, giving brands flexible and powerful ways to protect their identity.

The following cases are currently pending in the U.S. courts involving allegations of infringing dupes and super-fakes:

• Lululemon v. Costco (C.D. Cal.) – Filed 27 June 2025
  • Lululemon alleges that certain apparel items sold by Costco are "confusingly similar" to Lululemon's athletic apparel, including its "Scuba" hoodies, "Define" jackets, and "ABC" pants.
  • The complaint asserts trade dress and design patent infringement claims (in addition to trademark and unfair competition claims), arguing that Costco's garments copy not only design and fit, but also construction techniques and the overall "look and feel" of Lululemon's products.  Lululemon contends that these similarities, even in the absence of obvious logos, create a risk of consumer confusion or misleading association with its brand.
  • Lululemon is seeking injunctive relief and damages (e.g. lost profits).
• Richemont (Cartier & Van Cleef & Arpels) v. Malidani (S.D.N.Y) – Filed 30 July 2025
  • Richemont, on behalf of its luxury divisions Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, alleges that Malidani Jewelry Corp. sells ultra-realistic "super-fake" jewelry, including pieces styled after Cartier's "LOVE" and "Juste un Clou" bracelets, and Van Cleef & Arpels' "Alhambra" line, at prices approaching authentic retail.
  • The complaint alleges trademark and trade dress infringement, claiming that Malidani's products replicate protectable, source-identifying design elements of the original luxury jewelry, creating a risk of consumer confusion and harm to brand equity and exclusivity.
  • Richemont seeks injunctive relief to stop sales of infringing items, recall or destruction of counterfeit products, disgorgement of profits, and damages of up to $ 2,000,000 per counterfeit mark.
• Coach (Tapestry) v. Quince (N.D. Cal.) – Filed 4 April 2025
  • Coach alleges that Quince's handbags infringe on the trade dress of Coach's "Rogue" and "Soho" flap bags.
  • The complaint does not rely on Quince using Coach logos. Instead, the claim asserts that Quince's handbags copy signature, non-functional design features, such as silhouette, stitching detail, hardware placement, which Coach argues serve as source identifying trade dress.
  • Coach seeks injunctive relief (i.e. orders to stop sales, recall/destroy infringing items), disgorgement of profits from Quince's allegedly infringing sales, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees.

EU Legal Trends

Even where traditional trademark rights do not apply, courts across Europe are taking a stronger stance against dupes and super-fakes by relying on unfair competition and parasitic conduct laws. Recent case law demonstrates a growing judicial tendency to not only protect brand names and logos, but also the broader brand universe – including distinctive stylistic, conceptual, and aesthetic elements. Courts are also imposing significant damages even for small-scale infringements and taking a firm stance against "customization" practices that obscure or dilute brand origin.

The CJEU has consistently endorsed a rigorous approach to trademark protection, as evidenced by its decision in Off-White (Case C-580/18-2, 2020). In this judgment, the CJEU affirmed that even elements of a feature which may appear descriptive – such as a brand name that constitutes a common color designation – can, under certain circumstances, exhibit distinctive character and, therefore, qualify for protection as a trademark. This judgment further consolidates the position of trademark proprietors by extending enforceable protection not only against traditional counterfeits but also against dupes and super-fakes that emulate the stylistic, conceptual, or descriptive features associated with a brand's identity.

However, in instances where brand owners lack registered trademark protection for key elements of their products, they are increasingly resorting to actions based on unfair competition law and parasitic conduct to safeguard their commercial interests and to take action against dupes and super-fakes.

• Rolex v. Pinel & Pinel (Paris Court of Appeal) – Decision 20 June 2025
  • The court found that the use of Rolex's model shorthands (such as "GMT", "SUM", "DT", and "XP") on third-party watch winders amounted to unfair competition and parasitism – even though Rolex does not manufacture watch winders itself. The court ordered the defendant to stop using these Rolex-specific codes and awarded Rolex € 75,000 in lump-sum damages. This case shows that in France and the EU more generally, a brand's shorthands, internal model codes, or other unregistered identifiers can still receive legal protection. Even if these elements are not trademarks, their misuse on related or adjacent products can amount to unfair competition or parasitism.
• Rolex v. Skeleton Concept (Paris Judicial Court) – Decision 12 February 2025
  • Similarly in this case, the court found that Skeleton Concept had infringed Rolex's trademark and design rights by producing and selling heavily customized Rolex watches – modifications that altered the appearance of genuine Rolex timepieces to the point of resembling unofficial Rolex "special editions". The court rejected Skeleton Concept's "exhaustion" defence (i.e. the argument that once Rolex sells a watch, it loses control over how it is modified or resold) and held that such extensive aftermarket changes can still harm the brand and mislead consumers. As a result, the court ordered Skeleton Concept to cease sales and awarded Rolex € 710,000 in damages. This case shows that extensive aftermarket customization is not automatically shielded by exhaustion. When modifications materially change a product's appearance in a way that suggests association, endorsement, or official provenance, they can constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Hermès v. two Saint-Tropez based Boutiques (TJ Marseille) – Decision 26 June 2025
  • For the sale of just nine high-quality counterfeit Hermès Kelly bags, the court awarded € 100,000 in damages to Hermès. In assessing damages, the court placed significant weight not only on the counterfeit bags themselves but also on the overall presentation—including Hermès-style dust bags, branded-looking packaging, and the upscale locations of the boutiques involved. These contextual elements were treated as aggravating factors that increased the perceived harm to the brand. This case demonstrates that courts in France and the EU are willing to impose significant damages for small volumes of super-fakes, especially where packaging or presentation mimics the brand, meaning both producers and resellers face heightened enforcement risk and brands have strong deterrence leverage.
• Christian Louboutin (Cour de cassation) – Decision 10 September 2025
  • A seller of super-fake goods was ordered to pay criminal fines in addition to civil damages after authorities seized only 12 pairs of counterfeit Christian Louboutin shoes and 628 bags. A key takeaway from this case is that French courts are willing to impose serious penalties—including criminal sanctions—even when the quantities involved are relatively small, underscoring the high enforcement risk for anyone dealing in super-fakes or counterfeit goods.

UK Legal Trends

Finally, the UK legal landscape has also evolved in response to the growing prevalence of dupes and super fakes in the luxury sector. Courts now take a proactive and robust approach, prioritizing the protection of intellectual property rights and the interests of brand owners. In dupe or super-fake scenarios, UK courts are increasingly favoring original brand owners, particularly where a brand owner has registered rights in relation to its designs and packaging. This trend is illustrated by several recent cases.

• Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v. Dream Paris (UK Supreme Court) – Decision 24 June 2025
  • The court confirmed that post-sale confusion, meaning consumer confusion occurring after purchase, is a valid consideration in assessing trademark infringement. It emphasized that real post sale contexts, for example viewing the trademark on a handbag on a person walking a public street, can influence the similarity analysis and likelihood of confusion. Though the Supreme Court ultimately upheld that there was no infringement in this case, the ruling sets a crucial precedent: trademark owners may now rely on post-sale confusion in enforcement strategies.
• Edwards v. Boohoo (IPEC – England & Wales) – Decision 3 April 2025
  • This case involved whether Boohoo infringed the claimant's UK unregistered design rights in certain garment designs. While some features were deemed protectable under UK unregistered design rights, IPEC found no copying, partly due to a lack of design drawings from claimant and substantial evidence of independent creation by Boohoo. A key takeaway from this case for brand owners is to invest in design documentation to strengthen unregistered design right claims.
• Thatchers Cider Company Limited v. Aldi Stores Limited (UK Court of Appeal) – Decision 20 January 2025
  • This case centered around whether Aldi's copycat cider with similar labelling and packaging to Thatchers' cider infringed Thatchers' trademarks. While not a luxury item, this is a key decision for brand owners wishing to take action against dupes. The court held that the Aldi cider "rode on the coat-tails" of the Thatchers' cider and was purposefully intended to remind consumers of Thatchers' trademark. Thatchers had spent millions on promoting its cider and had a high number of sales in a relatively short amount of time.  Due to this, the court held that Thatchers had a clear reputation in its trademark, and that Aldi, who had not spent anything on promoting its "dupe" cider, had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers' trademark. This case highlights the importance of registering packaging and investing in promotion in order to build reputation in a trademark for brand owners.

Key Takeaways

Super-fakes and dupes are both gaining traction amid rising prices of luxury goods and social media influence.

• Enforcement is broadening beyond counterfeit logos and courts are recognizing consumer harm and brand dilution in broader "look-alike" practices.
• While the underlying law differs, the trend is convergence, and courts are tending to stretch doctrines to capture super-fake and even dupe harms.
  • US: Technical disputes over distinctiveness or product functionality may lead to the dismissal of trademark infringement claims at the pleading stage. However, false advertising claims remain a powerful tool to address the core economic harm in the "dupe" and "super-fake" market, namely, misleading assertions that a lower-priced product offers the same quality, ingredients, or prestige as the original.
  • EU: Courts rely on principles of unfair competition law and parasitism to safeguard brand ecosystems, extending protection beyond individual product lines.
  • UK: Enforcing unregistered rights remains difficult without strong documentation, however, courts are increasingly inclined to protect original brand owners.

Conclusion: Gaps & Grey Zones Remain

Each of the jurisdictions considered above take the unauthorized use of trademarks on dupe or super-fake products very seriously. However, if dupes clearly identify themselves as dupes (e.g. by using "inspired by" or "dupe" on their packaging), this may allow an easy exit against trademark or other IP infringement claims as courts find consumers are not and cannot be confused as to the source of the product.

• US:
  • In the US, trade dress is typically only protected if the brand can show that the product's design features are non-functional and have acquired distinctiveness. Dupe manufacturers often argue that certain product features are purely functional (e.g. shapes, colors, packaging) to avoid liability – creating substantial hurdles for rights holders.
  • Additionally, even when a product borrows the "look and feel" of a luxury item, U.S. law generally requires ownership of a specific, protectable mark, or trade dress. "Aesthetic similarity", "brand vibes", and general stylistic mimicry often fall outside enforceable rights unless distilled into distinctive, non-functional design features. This leaves room for products to be deliberately evocative without triggering infringement.
• EU:
  • Regulation regarding dupes and super-fakes varies significantly across EU member states. This lack of harmonization begins with the absence of an EU-wide legal definition of dupes, resulting in each member state assessing them under its own national legal framework, and ultimately extends to significant differences in enforcement. For example, in Spain and Italy even the private purchase and possession of dupes and super-fakes may constitute an offence punishable by fines, whereas in Germany, customs authorities may seize such products but private possession by the buyer generally remains free of sanctions or penalties. Consequently, civil and criminal enforcement varies considerably between member states, both in terms of the willingness and severity of civil and criminal prosecution.
  • While Registered Community Designs are protected for 25 years, Unregistered Community Designs are only protected for three years, which is why various fast fashion companies are able to copy patterns, structures and other properties three years after the original's release.
• UK:
  • Where a brand does not have registered rights, a common route of action against dupes can be passing off claims. Passing off is a tort that protects the goodwill associated with a brand and prevents others from misrepresenting their products as those of the original brand owner. However, passing off claims are difficult to establish and win, particularly in dupe scenarios, as they require the active deception of the consumer, which is generally not the case if the product is advertised as a "dupe" or as an intentionally similar product. Additionally, demonstrating actual damage can be complex and evidence-intensive. This makes passing off a difficult route of action against dupes and highlights how brand owners relying solely on unregistered rights face significant hurdles in protecting their brands. Overall, the UK legal framework offers far stronger and more efficient protection to brands with registered rights, leaving those with only unregistered rights at a disadvantage when seeking to combat dupes and super-fakes.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}