FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Karine Disdier-Mikus and Marguerite Senard, Fiducial Legal By Lamy
Fiducial Legal by Lamy 24 rue de Berri 75008 Paris France
Tel: + 33 1 53 05 91 90 Fax: + 33 1 53 05 91 99 Web: www.fiducial-legal.com
IP Rights-Holders’ Arsenal Against Dupes: A French Perspective Have you heard of the Wirkin bag? This is the name given by influencers to the bag inspired by Hermes’s iconic Birkin bag, sold by Walmart at only USD78. Although cheaper and of lesser quality, industry connoisseurs are not fooled that this imitation’s design only innocuously creates what is clearly an intentional sales advantage. Faced with this type of infringement, brands are stepping up their protection efforts. Either called a dupe for a duplicate in English or Pingti in Chinese, this phenomenon of sell - ing products that reproduce essential charac - teristics of a product designed and marketed by leading brands is becoming increasingly popu - lar. Although this practice is long-established, particularly in fake markets, they are now taking on a new dimension driven by the culture of fast fashion and influencers. Indeed, the purchasing of dupes promoted by social media influencers has been demonstrated to influence social net - work users, particularly the young generations, to proceed with acquiring such litigious items. Consumers are seduced by these products, which are cheaper but often of lower quality, both in terms of manufacturing and materials. According to a Statista study on “Share of con - sumers in Europe who would purchase dupe
fashion, beauty, or luggage products in 2024,” 41% of respondents have purchased a dupe product and would do so again, whereas 30% have not purchased a dupe product but would consider it. This reflects the popularity of dupes among consumers. Although dupes have no legal definition under current French and European legislation, they can be defined as low-cost imitations of well- known and popular premium products that are not limited to the fashion industry but can also be found in perfume, jewellery, travel, food, etc. Far from giving in, brands have demonstrated their ability to react and mobilise actions to First and foremost, the main legal basis for action against dupes is intellectual property rights infringement. If trade mark infringement were readily avail - able when a trade mark is reproduced without authorisation, infringers would become increas - ingly cautious and refrain from this blatant affix - ing. Indeed, Walmart did not sell its bag under the name Birkin or even Wirkin, which could have been considered similar. Instead, Walmart assigned their own trade mark to the product, counter this illegal practice. Dupes as infringing products
139 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook