Journalist Justine Offredi interviewed our partner specialized in Intellectual Property for Luxury Tribune – publication 25 02 2025.
Look at their discussion about “dupes”
With the rise of “dupes”, luxury brands are facing new legal challenges. While explicit copies fall under counterfeiting and criminal law, “dupes” fall into the category of commercial parasitism, a more nuanced concept in French law. Delphine Brunet-Stoclet, an intellectual property lawyer, provides insight.
In English, the term “dupe” (1) is a shortened form of “duplicate,” referring to a product made to resemble a more expensive or higher-quality item. Unlike counterfeits, which feature exact logos and trademarks, dupes draw inspiration from the design, materials, or colors of luxury items while attempting to remain within legal boundaries. On social media, influencers frequently share their “perfect dupe” finds, fueling a booming market. Although TikTok actively monitors such content, the hashtag #dupe already has nearly 300,000 videos.
Dior, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Hermès, Bottega Veneta—no brand is immune to the trend. One of the most sought-after recent imitations is the “Birkin Walmart,” also known as “Wirkin,” priced between $78 and $102 on Walmart’s commercial platform. This near-perfect replica of Hermès’ iconic “it-bag” quickly sold out, propelled by its viral success on social media. On February 14, Axel Dumas, Executive Chairman of Hermès International, announced plans to take legal action against the manufacturers of this “dupe”, comparing the trend to AI-powered journalism plagiarism. However, he also acknowledged that the Wirkin reflects growing public interest in Birkin bags, paradoxically seeing it as a compliment.
A threat to the luxury industry or a desire-enhancing tool for brands? Regardless, dupes benefit from luxury brands’ investments in image and reputation without bearing the associated costs, pushing brands to take legal action. In an interview with Luxury Tribune, Delphine Brunet-Stoclet, a Paris-based intellectual property lawyer, explores how luxury creations can be protected and outlines the legal remedies available, referencing notable cases such as (2) Chanel vs. Jonak (2024) and Céline vs. Mango (2023). (3)
How to differentiate a “dupe” from a counterfeit?
Delphine Brunet-Stoclet: The “dupe” phenomenon has significantly grown over the past year. Unlike counterfeiting, which is a criminal offense, duping falls under civil liability and is considered an act of unfair competition. The legal means to combat it rely on the concept of parasitism. (Editor’s note: Under French law, parasitism refers to unjustly benefiting from the know-how, human effort, and financial investments made by a company to the detriment of the company whose reputation is exploited.)
To simplify, when a brand is explicitly copied and mentioned, it is clearly counterfeiting. However, when a brand is not named, yet the design of a product is nearly identical and misleads consumers about its origin, it is considered a “dupe”. Furthermore, a “dupe” is generally acknowledged as an imitation, whereas a counterfeit is a fake item intended to deceive buyers into believing it is the original.
In the 2023 Céline vs. Mango case, Mango’s accessories were at issue. By replicating certain pieces from Céline’s collections, Mango suggested to consumers that they could acquire the luxury house’s designs by shopping with them. The court ruled that Mango evoked Céline’s products in consumers’ minds and took advantage of the brand’s investments and reputation to sell its own products—which is precisely the objective of a “dupe”.
What legal actions can brands take when they identify a “dupe” of their product online?
D.B: Major brands actively monitor social media and attempt to counter unauthorized use of their image to promote non-authentic products. They employ various strategies, including negotiation and high-impact legal actions.
Currently, there are more complaints than legal precedents on the matter. In practice, many cases do not reach the courts: cease-and-desist letters are sent, negotiations take place, and settlements are often reached before legal proceedings begin.
How can a brand prove its product’s notoriety in consumers’ perceptions?
D.B: In the Chanel vs. Jonak case, Chanel demonstrated that its two-tone beige and black “slingback” shoe had strong brand recognition. A survey showed that 20% of female consumers, whether luxury clients or not, associated Jonak’s slingbacks with Chanel, mainly due to the colors (74%) and, to a lesser extent, the shape (32%). Survey responses included statements like “It’s a Chanel model that I love and own,” and “A classic Chanel design that never goes out of style.” “The two colors beige and black, as well as the shape of the heel”, “the shape, the design and the colors”.
The court also noted that many internet users spontaneously linked Jonak’s shoes to Chanel’s slingbacks, with comments such as “They remind me of Chanel, so beautiful!” and “Looks almost like @chanelofficial”, or “Chanel inspired” and many others. The more established a product’s notoriety, the stronger the case for parasitism. Chanel also leveraged its archives, ad campaigns, press coverage, and marketing materials to reinforce the shoe’s brand association.
Finally, to substantiate reprehensible acts, it is essential to prove the existence of the products in question. To this end, bailiff reports can be conducted: bailiffs purchase the relevant items anonymously from websites or stores to demonstrate the extent of parasitism at the time of the trial. This is precisely how Mango proceeded, summoning ten bailiffs to support its case against Céline, for example.
What challenges might a brand face in proving the facts?
D.B: One of the main challenges for a brand is proving that the product in question is specifically attributed to it by the public. Some products become so iconic that they end up being perceived as generic market elements. When a product, originally designed by a brand, has not been patented and has gained such widespread recognition that it is sold as a white-label product by various distributors, it becomes more difficult to establish an exclusive link with the original brand.
Parasitism is not accidental; it is an intentional behavior that must be demonstrated. The victim must prove:
-That their product (or an essential characteristic of it) holds an individualized economic value resulting from expertise, intellectual effort, reputation, and investment.
-That the inspiration or reference to this economic value provides a competitive advantage to the perpetrator of the parasitic act.
-That this inspiration or reference is intentional, unjustified, and done for profit.
How is the damage to the brand assessed?
D.B: The damage suffered by a brand due to parasitism is primarily economic. It stems from the dilution of a luxury product’s exclusivity and appeal. When copies or closely inspired designs multiply, the brand loses the rarity and prestige that define the luxury sector. Parasitism is recognized even in the absence of direct market share loss since the targeted consumers may not necessarily be the same. What is penalized is the undue advantage gained by the offending company, which benefits from the brand’s reputation and investments without bearing the associated costs.
In the Chanel vs. Jonak case, the court identified two aspects of the damage: The dilution of Chanel’s investments and the unjust profit made by Jonak through the exploitation of Chanel’s brand value. As a result, Jonak was ordered on appeal to pay €150,000 in economic damages and €30,000 for moral prejudice, along with the removal of the infringing products within 15 days.
Regarding Céline’s lawsuit against Mango, proving the damage was more complex for Céline, as it involved details scattered across multiple collections over time. However, thanks to surveys and bailiff reports, the Court of Appeal ordered Mango to pay €2 million in damages to compensate for the economic and moral harm caused by these parasitic practices. This ruling was particularly severe, as the damage was recognized on a European scale.
How can a brand protect itself and anticipate legal action?
D.B: It is essential for a brand to communicate extensively about its identity and products so that consumers clearly associate them exclusively with the brand. Additionally, it is advisable to register any distinctive element of its creations as a figurative trademark, provided it is not purely functional. For example, a handbag clasp or a shoe heel may be difficult to recognize as a distinctive sign due to its common usage.
For a sign to be distinctive, it must enable consumers to immediately associate it with the brand and the origin of the product. Ideally, copyright protection should be used whenever possible.
For instance, on February 7, in a lawsuit filed by Hermès against the retailer NDG Paris Global (4) concerning two handbag models sold on its website, the Paris Judicial Court ruled that the clasps of Hermès’ iconic Kelly and Birkin bags are now protected under copyright law. The court found that “the padlock incorporated into the three-dimensional sign is one of its particularly distinctive elements, allowing it to be conceptually associated with the brand in question.”
Additionally, Hermès has also registered its clasp as a trademark, which should allow it to take legal action for trademark infringement—an especially effective legal tool—against any imitation of its bags (whether the Birkin or another model) that reproduces this clasp.
How can foreign brands take legal action in French courts in cases of unfair competition and counterfeiting?
D.B: In France, copyright is particularly well-protected, and parasitism is strictly regulated. In certain cases of unfair competition, I have had British clients who had no recourse in the UK to combat parasitism. They took advantage of the fact that their website was accessible in France to bring a case before French courts. A French judge may have jurisdiction to hear a case involving a foreign company, as was the case with the Spanish brand Mango, provided it is proven through bailiff reports that the products in question are being marketed in French territory.
Regarding the counterfeiting of a European Union trademark, its owner can file a lawsuit in the country of the infringer’s origin and obtain a decision that is enforceable across the entire European Union.
Can a “dupe” be legal?
D.B: If a company manages to avoid sanctions related to fraudulent practices and parasitism, it can be difficult to prove parasitism of a brand, particularly in sectors like fashion and design. Indeed, many elements are considered functional or customary, which makes it harder to distinguish between a copy and an inspiration. Thus, a product is no longer always classified as a “dupe” but rather as an interpretation inspired by trends or a common pool of designs.
How can brands protect themselves against “pingti” in China?
Note: The term “pingti” (拼贴), equivalent to a “dupe,” refers to copies or imitations of branded products in China, often slightly altered to avoid direct counterfeiting. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in fashion, beauty, and design.
D.B: To protect themselves, brands can register a copyright in China, which allows them to claim their copyright on Chinese platforms. This process strengthens their ability to take action against copies and assert their rights in the event of a dispute.
How has the law evolved on this subject, and how could it evolve further?
D.B: The law has not fundamentally changed, as civil liability remains a cornerstone of the French Civil Code. However, in the past, the distinction between unfair competition and parasitism was unclear. Today, the criteria distinguishing unfair competition from parasitism are clearer: the former requires the establishment of a risk of confusion between products, while parasitism can apply to non-competing brands. In both cases, the burden of proof lies with the victim.
(1) Dupe (Cambridge Dictionary): noun. A short form of duplicate that is used to refer to a product made to look like a more expensive or high-quality product.
(2) Jonak Chanel case: Decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 5, 1st Chamber, October 16, 2024, no. 22/19513.
(3) Mango Céline case: Decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 5, 2nd Chamber, November 10, 2023, no. 21/19126.
(4) Hermès Blao&Co case: Decision of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, February 7, 2025, RG n° 22/09210.
***
If your have any questions, contact us:
