Olivia Amplified
As you may remember, there was a huge controversy around the Wirkin (the Walmart Birkin bag). The Hermes Birkin bag is the most quintessential and sought-after bag from the brand. Walmart, known for its fair prices, sought to “dupe” this bag, almost identical.
Now Lululemon is suing Costco for allegedly copying its signature athletic wear designs! And suddenly, we’re not just talking fashion; we’re talking fashion law.
Welcome to the Dupe Economy, where everything luxe has a cheaper cousin and the courts are catching up. People love a good dupe… but are those copies legal?
The Wirkin
When social media caught wind of a $78–$102 bag on Walmart’s website that looked nearly identical to the Hermès Birkin (Hermes sells for $15,000+), the internet exploded. The bag, sold by third-party sellers like KAMUGO, avoided using the words “Hermès” or “Birkin,” and it left out the brand’s famous logo. So technically, it didn’t seem like a counterfeit. Was it just a lookalike?
While Hermès protects its logos and brand names through trademark law, it also has trade dress protection over the design and shape of the Birkin bag itself. That means things like the three-lobed flap, the padlock closure, and the overall silhouette are legally protected, even if the logo isn’t present. So, when a bag copies those elements, it’s still potentially infringing!
Other sellers, like Sulikehz, made the situation worse by directly using “Hermès” and “Birkin” in their product descriptions. That’s a fast track to trademark infringement. But even in the case of “cleaner” listings like KAMUGO’s, Hermès could still sue on the grounds of trade dress infringement or trademark dilution.
Could Hermès actually win? On one hand, they could argue that the Wirkin’s design is confusingly similar and that the presence of authentic Birkins on Walmart’s resale marketplace blurs the line for consumers. On the other hand, Walmart and sellers might argue that a $78 bag isn’t likely to be mistaken for a $10,000 one and that the products target entirely different buyers.
Still, under U.S. law, dilution doesn’t require confusion. The dupe lessens the distinctiveness of a famous brand. So even if no one thinks they’re buying a real Birkin, Hermès could argue that the existence of the Wirkin waters down their elite status. In other words, the bag might be cute, but it’s legally risky.
While it's not confirmed that Hermès officially sued Walmart, there's strong speculation that they may have taken legal action, or at least threatened it, over Walmart selling a Birkin bag "dupe". Walmart removed the bag from their site shortly after the massive media attention, possibly due to legal concerns raised by Hermès.
Another brand that frequently surfaces in conversations about the dupe economy is Steve Madden. The company has faced a number of lawsuits over the years for allegedly copying the designs of high-end fashion houses. Most recently, they were called out for releasing a version of the viral gel sandal, originally made by luxury label Alaïa. In response to the accusations, Steve Madden himself reportedly said, “Do you think that some of my girls even know who Alaïa is?”, referring to his typical customer base.
It’s an interesting point and, to a certain degree, understandable. His argument hinges on the idea that his shoppers are not the same demographic as those who buy from luxury brands like Alaïa. In other words, if his customers wouldn’t have purchased the original designer item to begin with, then the designer’s sales haven’t been hurt. But is that really true? I don’t believe the lines between luxury and fast fashion consumers are as rigid as Madden implies. You don’t need to be able to afford Alaïa to know what Alaïa is. And for many consumers, yes, even some of "his girls”, a dupe is a strategic choice. Rich people can be frugal (lol). And aspirational shoppers (who do follow designer trends) may actively opt for a $70 version of a $700 shoe, especially if the look is nearly identical. And in that sense, it’s entirely plausible that dupes do chip away at luxury sales.
“Cululemon” (not as cool as a name lmao)
In early 2024, Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco in California federal court (Lululemon USA Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2:25-cv-05864 (C.D. Cal.)) for allegedly copying the look of its most popular activewear.
According to Lululemon, Costco’s Kirkland Signature leggings and bras imitate their distinctive trade dress right down to the seam placement, waistband construction, and overall silhouette. While the Kirkland versions don’t use Lululemon’s logo, the visual similarity and fit are close enough that Lululemon believes consumers could be confused or at least that Costco is benefiting from Lululemon’s reputation without permission.
Costco might argue that their items are clearly different in quality and price, and that no one actually believes Kirkland is affiliated with Lululemon. But Lululemon’s legal team is vigorously defending its intellectual property, demanding that Costco stop selling the items and pay damages.
So... what even is a dupe? In legal terms, dupes generally fall into three categories:
Pure Dupes are completely legal. These are products that mimic a formula or color, like a drugstore lipstick that looks like a designer shade but use completely different packaging and branding. Think of them as inspired, not copied.
Risky Dupes are the legal gray area. They copy the structure, feel, or design of a product without using logos or trademarks. The Wirkin and Cululemon situations fall into this category. The intent isn’t necessarily to deceive, but the result can still create legal exposure.
Counterfeits are blatantly illegal. These use the original brand name, logo, and packaging to trick customers. No ambiguity there: they’re unlawful and often tied to large-scale counterfeit operations.
These distinctions matter because the dupe economy is changing how we interpret intellectual property, especially in fashion. Consumers want the look of luxury without the price tag, and brands want to protect their exclusivity and design investments.
Personally, I’ve found myself increasingly drawn to fashion law (even if Hermès rejected my paralegal application…lmao). These cases are especially interesting given the overall societal trend of dupes and the ever-changing legal landscape.
Are we seeing a trend of dupes? We like dupes/we don't? Should those companies pay back reparations for costs?
What do you think?
With gratitude,
Olivia
