Authored By: Sarah Amena McGhee
Queen Mary University of London
Abstract
This essay provides a critical evaluation of the threats posed to trademark and brand protection faced by luxury fashion brands in light of the growing ‘Dupe’ market. Gen Z consumer behaviour has shifted from historically symbolic luxury brands such as Gucci and Louis Vuitton towards more convenient and budget-friendly fast-fashion retailers like Shein and H&M. Although luxury fashion brands remain at the top of the market, the influence of social media trends has fuelled a rising demand for ‘Dupes’ produced by fast-fashion brands. Critics argue that the dupe market exploits grey areas in the law, enabling fast-fashion brands to mimic luxury designs without facing legal consequences, ultimately harming their brand image and market status. While such strategies may increase profits for fast-fashion companies, in principle, it contradicts the very existence of what trademark regulations set out to do. This essay concludes with the view that although ‘Dupes’ can be considered ‘healthy competition’, they in fact constitute a parasitic exploitation of trademark laws, posing a threat to the luxury fashion industry.
Introduction
Intellectual Property Law in the fashion industry has historically been anchored by one thing: the logo. Whether that is the iconic double G for Gucci, the LV for Louis Vuitton, or Chanel’s interlocking Cs, the luxury industry is built on recognisable symbols and the materialistic value they signify. However, due to changing economic circumstances, combined with the rise in social media marketing, especially among Gen Z consumers, there has been a shift in attitudes in favour of the ‘Dupe’ industry. This shift has placed luxury brands in the forefront of legal disputes as their customers are switching towards the budget-friendly variety that fast-fashion offers. These companies produce products that are almost identical to luxury models, simply distinguishing them by a price tag.
This essay will explore the dichotomy between luxury brand protection and imitation by fast-fashion brands, assessing whether it is simply ‘healthy competition’ or a clear legitimate threat to trademark and brand protection. To address this, this essay is structured into four main parts. Firstly, it establishes the conceptual framework for international brand protection, including the World Intellectual Property Organisation (hereafter WIPO), Paris Convention, Hague and Marid Systems. Second, it analyses the shift in purchasing behaviour, particularly among Gen Z consumers. Thirdly, it addresses trademark litigation through the lens of case law, including Gucci v Guess and Adidas v Fashion Nova. Lastly, it will critically assess whether current trademark regulations are sufficient in protecting luxury brands against the rising ‘Dupe’ market.
Background and conceptual framework
The protection of luxury fashion is governed by several international and regional provisions. The Paris Convention (1883) remains the cornerstone of Intellectual Property law. This treaty concerns the international protection of intellectual property, governing regulations on patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and trade names.[1] The Madrid system (1891), governed by the Madrid Agreement and Protocol, is administered by the WIPO. Under the management of WIPO’s centralised system, it allows trademark owners to file an application to seek brand protection in multiple member countries and its scope currently covers 131 countries globally. [2] The main benefit of this is that it enables fashion brands to branch out globally whilst maintaining protection for their logos, brand names, slogans, and distinctive design elements.[3] Furthermore, the Hauge Agreement in Brussels produced the Hague system (1924), which has set the standard for world trade regulations relating to counterfeiting. [4]
The central legal issue, as discussed by Alexis Theohardis, is that “Dupes mimic high-end products but tend to avoid copying logos or specific brand identifiers, allowing them to occupy a grey legal space within trademark law”. [5] This grey area makes it hard for luxury brands to succeed in trademark infringement claims against fast-fashion companies. Now you may be thinking, what is the problem with fast fashion ‘Dupes’. They look the same as luxury products but are marketed much cheaper. For consumers, this is practical and ideal, but for luxury brands the Dupe market is harmful. In producing these ‘knock off’s, essentially customers are led to believe that the goods are those of the luxury brand or otherwise affiliated with them, when in reality they are not.[6] This dynamic creates a consequential chain of events: consumers see a product resembling a luxury item, assume an affiliation, purchase the dupe, and in turn reduce demand for the original product. Fast-fashion sales subsequently increase while luxury brands lose customers, profit, market competitiveness and their long-standing brand loyalty. This legal friction is prevalent in the cases of Gucci v Guess (2012)[7] and Adidas v Fashion Nova (2025)[8], which will be discussed in turn later in the essay.
Legal Analysis
The core legal issue within International Trademark law is that it fails to tackle infringements by the ‘Dupe’ market. Luxury Fashion brands have long relied on their established historical reputation. Wingfield et al (2023) purports this notion. The article evaluates that these brands are not just ‘museum products’, their logos function as global symbols of wealth and status.[9] Megehee & Spake (2012) furthers this by arguing that wearing luxury goods is a way to raise the value of oneself. [10] We wear luxury items because they make us look wealthier and economically privileged. By contrast, fast fashion offers the same aesthetic appeal but just markets itself to the less wealthy customer base. How they do this all comes down to strategic marketing. These companies pride themselves on promoting aesthetics by imitating the latest luxury fashion trends, offering a permanent assortment rotation, accessible variety, and low prices (Gabrielli, Baghi, & Codeluppi, 2013).[11]
However, Wingfield et al underestimates the generational transformation in purchasing habits. Current economic circumstances have created a shift in shopping habits. Updated looks, greater variety and choice, well-designed and limited editions, along with the speed of their availability, have made the fast-fashion industry very attractive to many consumers, both young and old.[12] For example, major retailers such as Zara and H&M have even begun rebranding themselves as being a ‘high end’ or ‘fast premium fashion’ brand, marketing themselves as being comparable to those of luxury fashion brands, offering that luxurious appeal but at a fraction of the price. [13] The statistics reflect the change in purchasing habits. For instance, in 2023, SHEIN reported record sales of approximately $45 billion[14], significantly surpassing the revenue for Louis Vuitton, which reached $20 billion[15] and Gucci, which saw revenues drop to $19.6 billion at the end of 2023.[16]
A further catalyst for this shift is the new Gen Z era of fast-fashion shopping. This demographic engages heavily with social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram. These platforms are deemed to be heavily immersed in the dupe culture, for instance, on TikTok the hashtag #dupe has nearly 4 billion views and if you compare that to the size of the Earth’s population, that’s almost half of the population.[17] Constant exposure to social media posts comparing authentic luxury brands to ‘Dupes’ will impact the minds of consumers. Friesen G (2025) explores this argument. He argues that while companies like Hermès, Louis Vuitton and so on, have a loyal consumer following and provide timeless designs and exclusivity, customer attitudes have ultimately changed. [18]Instead, customers, especially a social media-conscious Gen Z who use platforms like TikTok and Instagram are being exposed to posts comparing authentic luxury brands to replicas, which in turn is driving down sales of luxury items.[19]
The legal implications of social media trends are significant, and because ‘Dupes’ proliferate across the e-commerce landscape, at fast-fashion retailers like Shein, Amazon and high-street retailers like New Look, H&M and Zara, their scale is unprecedented. Since ‘Dupes’ often don’t feature protected trademarks like a logo, brands are left with few ways to hit back.[20] The reason being is that ‘Dupes’ mimic high-end products but tend to avoid copying logos or specific brand identifiers, allowing them to occupy a grey legal space within trademark law.[21]Because of how quickly fast-fashion brands can create products, they dominate the market before luxury brands can even enter the space. [22]
Case Law discussion
Case law illustrates this grey area of trademark law. For example, Gucci v Forever 21[2018] [23], where Gucci alleged that Forever 21 had copied its stripe webbing design that featured on many of its products including a silver bomber jacket, a floral bomber jacket, a butterfly jumper, a green tiger motif jumper and a choker.[24] The legal issue that courts looked at, was whether Gucci could demonstrate customer confusion. If they could prove that upon customers seeing Forever 21’s products with the striped webbing design, they might mistakenly believe them to be original Gucci products.[25] The dispute ultimately concluded in 2018 with the US District Court of California confirming a joint notice of settlement between the parties. [26] No legal action was taken against the trademark infringement.
However, a successful case against a fast-fashion retailer is the case of Gucci America Inc v Guess (2012)[27]. This case concerned a 9-year dispute over the rights to the iconic interlocking “G” trademark. [28]Gucci claimed that the interlocking G’s that appeared on Guess’s shoes were confusing customers and causing profit losses for Gucci. In 2012, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found in Gucci’s favour, awarding $4.7 million to Gucci in damages and upholding that Guess infringed Gucci’s Trademark over the Interlocking G design.[29] The legal battle did not stop there, with Gucci filing lawsuits against Guess in other branches, including Italy, Australia and China. The courts in each jurisdiction argued differently. For EU countries, Italy and France, the EU General Court ruled in favour of Guess but in China and Australia, courts ruled in favour of Gucci. [30]Proceedings officially concluded in 2018 with the two parties reaching an agreement, but details as to this agreement have remained confidential.[31] However, it can be presumed that based on Guess’s current product range, Gucci was able to uphold its trademark.
A more recent example is Adidas v Fashion Nova (2025) [32], where Adidas accused Fashion Nova of the following: trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, trademark dilution and breach of contract.[33] It appears both parties had made an agreement in 2022 that Fashion Nova was not to use certain designs, including the use of the iconic Adidas ‘stripe’ design. However, Fashion Nova had breached this, continuing to sell these disputed signs to their customers. Adidas subsequently made a claim for breach of contract, arguing that these counterfeit Adidas products confused their customers into mistakenly believing that Fashion Nova designs were affiliated with Adidas, diluting their brand image.[34] In March 2025, both parties were able to reach a settlement but again, no legal action was taken against Fashion Nova.
These cases outline that it is very difficult for a luxury brand to succeed in legal action; damages may be awarded based on the circumstances, but in most of the above cases, the parties were able to reach a settlement between themselves. The dichotomy within the law is that if the luxury brand was to prevail in their lawsuit, it could set a precedent for stricter enforcement of intellectual rights in the fashion industry; however, as discussed in Adidas v Fashion Nova over the use of the ‘stripe’ design, there is an issue concerning the exclusivity of generic designs. The success of a lawsuit will depend on whether the court deems a design to be generic or inherently exclusive to a luxury brand. Tighter restrictions on trademark law will fundamentally undermine the concept of ‘healthy competition’ in the global fashion industry, as it will be harder for brands to be creative, innovative and stand out in a competitive market.
Critical analysis and findings
A key finding that emerges from this discussion is that consumer demand has fuelled the ‘Dupe’ market. For a consumer, brands offering replicas at a fraction of the cost is more attractive as they are getting essentially the same look of a high-end fashion product but without the hefty price tag. As Frieson puts, “fast fashion attempts to capture the look of luxury, not the craftsmanship behind it”. [35] Thus, customers want instant gratification from the things they buy. Fast-fashion is simply budget-friendly fashion, ultimately, consumers are getting the best value for their money. However, from a legal and commercial standpoint, this shift has posed difficulties for luxury brands. The availability of ‘Dupes’ ultimately erodes the exclusivity of luxury branding which can weaken long-standing brand loyalties. However, in light of the cases above, it can be argued that while these ‘knock-offs’ damage brand images, they actually help drive the luxury industry encouraging greater creativity and demand for the next big thing.
Moreover, many features that luxury brands seek to protect are actually quite generic. Gucci’s interlocking G design is arguably distinct and exclusive but if you take Adidas’s stripe design, there is not much creativity or exclusivity attached to that. To argue trademark law should be reformed to provide better protection against the dupe market would be very difficult to assess, as restrictions will either be too loose to allow for floodgates of lawsuits, or too restricted that it hinders creativity and innovation within the global fashion industry. Ultimately, it should all come down to customer choice, their preferences and their economic circumstances. For some customers, paying £400 on a pair of Gucci trainers is affordable, but for others, a £40 replica at H&M is just as good. Rather than seeing ‘Dupes’ as trademark infringement and counterfeiting, it should be a byproduct of rational consumer behaviour, and thus, instead of luxury brands seeing this as a deliberate rejection of their products, they should be more creative and innovative with their designs or undertake further legal measures, such as through Trademark registration under the WIPO to protect their brand designs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while dupes pose challenges to luxury brands, whether that be diluting brand identity, weakening exclusivity, or undermining brand protection measures, they also represent an inevitable byproduct of a competitive global fashion market. Fast- fashion has a function to imitate luxury brands, offering quality products targeted to a more budget-friendly customer base. Rather than seeing their products as infringements and counterfeits, as seen in case law, fast-fashion brands foster innovation by encouraging luxury brands to be more creative and innovative with their designs in order to maintain that distinction. Any calls for reforming trademark laws must be approached carefully. Although current frameworks allow for loopholes, further tightening to allow for generic elements of design to be registered trademarks, may be a detriment to the global fashion market. Therefore, a balance must be struck between safeguarding brand identity and preserving industry competition.
Reference(S):
[1] World Intellectual Property Organisation, ‘Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property’ (2023) <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/paris/index> accessed 7 March 2026.
[2] World Intellectual Property Organisation, ‘Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks’ (2023) <https://www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/registration/madrid_protocol/index> accessed 7 March 2026.
[3] Ibid.
[4] News Hound, ‘The Hague Rules: 100 years old and still standing – The International Institute of Marine Surveying (IIMS)’ (2025a) <https://www.iims.org.uk/the-hague-rules-100-years-old-and-still-standing-2/> accessed 6 March 2026; KENFOX IP & Law Office, ‘The Hague System: How it Can Benefit Industrial Design Registration’ (2021) <https://kenfoxlaw.com/the-hague-system-how-it-can-benefit-industrial-design-registration> accessed 6 March 2026.
[5] A Theoharidis, ‘The Devil Wears Dupes: Legal Implications of “Dupe Culture” in the Fashion Industry and How Trademark Law Should Adapt’ (2025) 9 Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review 213, 215 (HeinOnline).
[6] J Bainbridge, ‘Fashion Intellectual Property: How to Protect Your IP Rights in 2023’ (2023) Harper James <https://harperjames.co.uk/article/ip-rights-fashion-industry/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[7] Gucci America Inc v Guess Inc 868 F Supp 2d 207 (SDNY 2012)
[8] Adidas America Inc and Adidas AG v Fashion Nova LLC Case No. 2:25‑cv‑01878 (C.D. Cal 2025)
[9] J Wingfield, I Amed and L Solca, ‘Imran Amed & Luca Solca: How Big Luxury Dominates Fashion’ (2023) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/luxury/imran-amed-luca-solca-how-big-luxury-dominates-fashion/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[10]CM Megehee and DF Spake, ‘Consumer Enactments of Archetypes Using Luxury Brands’ (2012) 65 Journal of Business Research 1434; F Mosca and R Gallo, ‘Global Marketing Strategies for the Promotion of Luxury Goods’ (2016) Advances in Marketing, Customer Behaviour and Management.
[11] V Gabrielli, I Baghi and V Codeluppi, ‘Consumption Practices of Fast Fashion Products’ (2013) 17 Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 206.
[12] A Joy, JF Sherry Jr, A Venkatesh, J Wang and R Chan, ‘Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands’ (2012) 16 Fashion Theory 273.
[13] V Bhardwaj and A Fairhurst, ‘Fast Fashion: Response to Changes in the Fashion Industry’ (2010) 20 International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 165.
[14] Fast Fashion Retailer Shein Doubles Profits as It Awaits IPO Approval’ (2025) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/news/retail/fast-fashion-retailer-shein-doubles-profits-as-it-awaits-ipo-approval/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[15] J Wingfield, I Amed and L Solca, ‘Imran Amed & Luca Solca: How Big Luxury Dominates Fashion’ (2023) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/luxury/imran-amed-luca-solca-how-big-luxury-dominates-fashion/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[16] Kering, ‘Press Release 2023 Annual Results’ (2024) < https://www.kering.com/api/download-file/?path=Kering_Press_release_2023_Full_year_results_3388f09c4c.pdf>accessed 9 March 2026.
[17] J Kennedy, ‘Why Gen‑Z Loves Dupes’ (2024) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/beauty/why-gen-z-loves-dupes/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[18] G Friesen, ‘Can Luxury Compete with Fast Fashion’s Imitation Game?’ (2025) Forbes <https://www.forbes.com/sites/garthfriesen/2025/06/24/can-luxury-compete-with-fast-fashions-imitation-game/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[19] Ibid.
[20] J Kennedy, ‘Is Dupe Culture Out of Control?’ (2024) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/retail/is-dupe-culture-out-of-control/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[21] A Theoharidis, ‘The Devil Wears Dupes: Legal Implications of “Dupe Culture” in the Fashion Industry and How Trademark Law Should Adapt’ (2025) 9 Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review 213 (HeinOnline).
[22] ‘Plagiarism in Fashion: Why Is There So Much Imitation and Is It Allowed?’ (2024) FashionUnited <https://fashionunited.com/news/background/plagiarism-in-fashion-why-is-there-somuch-imitation-and-is-it-allowed/2024040859303> accessed 5 March 2026.
[23] Forever 21 Inc v Gucci America Inc Case No. 2:17‑cv‑04706‑SJO (C.D. Cal 2017–2018)
[24] C Fernandez, ‘Gucci Wins Latest Round in Legal Battle with Forever 21’ (2017) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/gucci-wins-latest-round-in-legal-battle-with-forever-21/> accessed 5 March 2026; Fashion Law Institute, ‘Breaking: Gucci & Forever 21 Settle Stripes Case’ (2018) <https://www.fashionlawinstitute.com/cutting-edge-articles/breaking-gucci-forever-21settle-stripes-case> accessed 5 March 2026.
[25] Ibid.
[26] C Fernandez, ‘Gucci Wins Latest Round in Legal Battle with Forever 21’ (2017) The Business of Fashion <https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/gucci-wins-latest-round-in-legal-battle-with-forever-21/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[27] Gucci v Guess (n 7)
[28] K Chitrakorn, ‘Gucci and Guess End Nine-year Trademark Dispute’ (The Business of Fashion, 2018)<https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/gucci-and-guess-end-nine-year-trademark-dispute/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Adidas v Fashion Nova (n 8)
[33] ‘Adidas vs Fashion Nova: Trademark Dispute’ (2025) Lux Juris <https://luxjuris.com/adidas-vs-fashion-nova-trademark-dispute/> accessed 5 March 2026.
[34] Ibid.
[35] G Friesen (n 18)
