12/08/2026
Counterfeits and knock-off products continue to pose a significant challenge for brand owners. Increasingly, brand owners and online platforms themselves are taking steps to combat the sale of infringing goods and having success. The problems range from direct counterfeits to inferior quality knock-offs, to the inspired-by dupes. All can be unauthorised and designed to imitate genuine goods and mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing authentic products, something just as good, or something to link to the real goods. Here we take a look at a recent UK Court decision. Differences between the different types of unauthorised goods were found to have an impact on how a successful Claimant can expect damage awards. We have also read, with interest, Temu’s latest report on IP infringement.
Fendi Italia SRL & Ors v Rolo Fashion Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1703 (IPEC)
In July 2026, the High Court issued a judgement ordering social media influencer Georgia Aldridge and her company Rolo Fashion Ltd, to pay a total of £213,000 in damages to the owners of the luxury brands Fendi, Loewe, Christian Dior, Celine and Louis Vuitton.
Georgia Aldridge sold counterfeit and knock off designer goods via WhatsApp. A selection of these goods have been described as ‘super fakes’. Although some knock-offs are clearly of inferior quality and are easily identifiable as imitations, ‘super fakes’ represent a more sophisticated form of copying. These high-quality replicas can be so convincing that consumers may struggle to distinguish them from genuine products.
In January 2025, the Court found that the sale of the counterfeit and knock-off goods, all bearing the luxury brands’ trade marks, constituted trade mark infringement. The 2026 decision concerned the assessment as to the sum of damages that Georgia and her company were liable for.
Nicolas Lambert, head of online brand protection for LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), argued that, because the ‘super fakes’ were intended to mislead the public into believing that they were purchasing genuine branded products, or products identical to those produced by the brands, the sale of these goods amounted to losses of sales for the brands.
Whilst the High Court agreed with this position, they held that only 713 of the sales made by Georgia and her company were classed as ‘super fakes’ and resulted in the brands losing out on sales. The Court held that 4,039 sales related to lower quality fakes and these goods had less of a direct impact on the luxury brands because consumers would have been aware that they were buying a cheaper imitation rather than a genuine product.
The brands were awarded damages of £200,000 in relation to the sale of the 713 ‘super fakes’ and an additional £13,000 in relation to the sale of the 4,039 lower quality items.
Interestingly, the Court rejected arguments made by the brands in this case that they suffered reputational damages as a result of Georgia Aldridge’s business. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence submitted, making it clear that the evidential burden of proving reputational damage is high.
This case highlights how intellectual property enforcement is adapting to the evolving landscape of online consumer purchasing. The judges are willing to distinguish between goods based on the extent of copying, meaning even infringing goods may be treated differently.
Temu Intellectual Property Protection Report (June 2025 – May 2026)
Temu is an online marketplace that sells heavily discounted goods. On social media, the platform has become popular amongst those actively looking to purchase knock off goods. As set out in Temu’s recently published Intellectual Property Protection Report (‘IPPR’), Temu outline the steps they are taking to address this and attempt to distance themselves from this negative association.
This IPPR outlines the proactive measures Temu took between June 2025 and May 2026 to try and prevent the sale of fakes and ensure that consumers using the platform are purchasing “authentic, safe, and trustworthy products”.
Introduced in 2023, Temu’s Intellectual Property enforcement systems aim to remove the burden of enforcement traditionally placed on brand owners. It places some responsibility on Temu to implement proactive measures to prevent infringing goods from being advertised on the platform in the first place. Their 2026 report claims that in the period of June 2025 – May 2026, proactive removals exceeded complaint-based removals by a ratio of 331:1.
How did they achieve this?
Data collection for genuine products: Right holders provide Temu with details of their registrations, reference materials and insights. These are used by automated algorithms, in combination with manual review, proactively to identify and remove potentially infringing products. As well as counterfeits, Temu address the issue of dupes. In particular, dupes often do not directly copy, rather they try to replicate the overall appearance and impression of the genuine product, which still may be infringement of IP rights. Temu’s image-based detection systems that use ‘visual identifiers’ provided by brands try and locate potential dupes even when they don’t explicitly reference registered marks.
Seller Verification: The platform seeks to verify sellers before they are authorised to sell products. Temu request information including company registration details and legal representative information to discourage bad actors; Temu will hold the information in order to address any issues. Those that do not provide the required details are not approved to join the platform. Further, the details must be renewed periodically. If the users miss the deadline to provide the updated information, the user’s listings may be restricted or removed.
Product review: In addition to screening the sellers, the products themselves are reviewed. The titles, descriptions, images, and logos are all analysed by Temu, and some listings are automatically blocked or sent for manual review. They report to have a strong image-based detection policy and that their monitoring database incorporates over 47 million images.
Consumer education: When the terms “fake,” “dupe”, and “counterfeit”, across different languages, are searched on the platform, consumers are not provided with results, and instead are shown an educational message warning them against purchasing illegitimate products.
Automated procedures may of course lead to legitimate listings being flagged in error. Therefore, if a listing is removed, and the alleged infringer believes this is wrong, they can file a counter-notice alongside relevant documentation which Temu will then review.
We previously reported on TikTok’s IP enforcement strategy, and we are pleased to see further examples of online platforms issuing Intellectual Property reports and taking proactive steps to assist right holders.
This content is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.
