The real price of superfakes

This article was first published in the November/December 2026 issue of CITMA Review, the journal of the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA).

[2026] EWHC 1703 (IPEC), Fendi Italia SRL & Ors v Rolo Fashion Ltd & Anor, 9th July 2026

Jessica des Landes considers how this LVMH case might impact luxury brands in a rapidly evolving counterfeits market.

The High Court ordered social media influencer Georgia Aldridge to pay £213,000 to LVMH and its subsidiary luxury fashion houses, Fendi, Loewe, Christian Dior and Celine (the Brands), following an inquiry into damages for trade mark infringement. The damages award arose from claims against Ms Aldridge and her company, Rolo Fashion, for the unauthorised sale of counterfeit goods sourced through channels including AliExpress. The case highlights the strict enforcement methods luxury fashion houses deploy to safeguard brand integrity, and provides critical commentary on the evolving counterfeit market and the evidential burden of establishing reputational harm.

It was alleged that Ms Aldridge used her social media accounts and a popular instant messaging app to market the infringing goods. By way of defence, Ms Aldridge asserted that her business operated solely by means of drop shipping, which is to say that sales were fulfilled directly by suppliers without Ms Aldridge ever holding inventory of the infringing goods. This was challenged by the Claimants, as messages sent by Ms Aldridge and revealed in the disclosure referred to the goods as being “in stock”.

As Ms Aldridge chose not to contest or defend the substantive claim, a default judgment was granted in favour of the Claimants in January 2025. This meant that liability was treated as admitted, without the Court needing to evaluate the mechanics of a drop-shipping business model at a trial on liability. The Court’s task was therefore confined to quantifying economic loss across the three heads of damage claimed: (1) damage to the reputation of the Brands, (2) profits lost as a consequence of sales, and (3) lost licensing income.

Impact of evolved counterfeits

One of the issues for the Court to consider was whether the quality of the counterfeit goods impacted the Brands’ losses, with LVMH filing evidence to support that it did. According to LVMH, some high-quality counterfeit goods fall into the category of ‘superfakes’ or ‘dupes’, including those sold by Ms Aldridge. LVMH alleged that the higher prices and higher quality of superfakes mean they are more likely to deceive consumers and are therefore more likely to displace sales of genuine products. LVMH argued this contrary to the notion that counterfeit sales “feed a distinct market”, whereby the consumer is aware they are buying counterfeit goods, in which case, there would be no loss of sale or damage to reputation.

“It could not be assumed that every sale of a counterfeit item resulted in the lost sale of a genuine one, as the evidence did not suggest consumers believed they were buying genuine goods”

The Court accepted that some of Ms Aldridge’s sales of counterfeit goods resulted in lost sales for the Brands, but others did not. A distinction was made on the basis it could not be assumed that every sale of a counterfeit item resulted in the lost sale of a genuine one, as the evidence did not suggest consumers believed they were buying genuine goods. The Court noted that the prices of the infringing goods were consistently and distinctly lower than the Claimants’ equivalent products, and that “it would take a naïve consumer to believe that products sold at those prices are genuine”. The Court estimated that Ms Aldridge’s counterfeit sales resulted in 713 lost sales of genuine goods for the Claimants, and awarded £200,000 for lost profits on those sales. However, the Court decided that a further 4,039 of Ms Aldridge’s counterfeit sales did not result in lost sales. The Claimants claimed further damages under the ‘user principle’ borrowed from patent law, which is a basis for calculating damages in infringement cases by defining a reasonable royalty or license fee for the unauthorised use of an invention. As no evidence was submitted upon which to base the calculation of an appropriate royalty, the Court estimated this at 3% of the Defendants’ average selling price, and awarded the Claimants an additional £13,000.

Reputational harm

The Court was ultimately unpersuaded by LVMH’s arguments as to reputational damage, stating there was no reason to suppose that counterfeit consumers held the Brands responsible for the quality of counterfeit goods, or the conduct of the counterfeit suppliers. In essence, the counterfeit consumer was found not to be deceived as to the origin of the goods. Although the decision in this case does not preclude brand owners from pursuing claims for brand degradation and reputational harm, it does send a clear message that the burden of proof for establishing reputational damage is high in the absence of consumer confusion.

Broader industry impact

The decision stresses the inherent challenges of quantifying damages in default proceedings, particularly where disclosure is inadequate. While the user principle provides a vital safety net, to ensure brand owners are not left uncompensated in circumstances where lost sales cannot be proven, the Court’s nuanced view on the importance of consumer perception when purchasing counterfeit goods remains the judgment’s most significant takeaway. The case underscores the corrosive effect of superfakes on the allure and perceived value of luxury brands. If streets are flooded with high-grade counterfeits, the distinctiveness and power of attraction of a brand are inevitably diluted, for much of the enduring appeal of luxury goods lies not only in their craftsmanship and heritage, but in their exclusivity and inaccessibility to a large part of the public.