27 July 2026
A UK court has ordered an influencer and her company to pay £213,000 for selling counterfeit goods bearing trade marks associated with Fendi, Loewe, Christian Dior and Celine.
The result is significant. But the real lesson is how the Court calculated the damages.
It did not treat every counterfeit sale as a lost sale of an authentic product.
What happened?
In Fendi Italia SRL & Ors v Rolo Fashion Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1703 (IPEC), liability had already been established by default judgment.
The remaining question was how much Georgia Aldridge and Rolo Fashion Limited should pay for the infringement.
How was the £213,000 calculated?
The Court estimated that the defendants had made approximately 4,752 sales.
It found that around 15%—approximately 713 transactions—probably displaced genuine purchases.
Using an estimated profit of about £280 per item, the Court awarded:
-
£200,000 in lost profits.
The remaining 4,039 sales were not found to have replaced genuine purchases.
However, the defendants had still infringed the trade marks and taken unfair advantage of their distinctive character or reputation.
The Court therefore applied the user principle, using a hypothetical reasonable royalty to assess compensation.
With no evidence of an appropriate royalty rate, it adopted a minimum rate of 3% of the defendants’ average £110 selling price:
4,039 sales × £110 × 3% = £13,328.70
That figure was rounded down to:
-
£13,000 under the user principle.
This was a notional method of valuing the unauthorised use of the trade marks. It was not a finding that LVMH had actually lost £13,000 in licensing revenue.
What about the “superfake” issue?
The damages evidence distinguished cheap, obvious counterfeits from higher-quality replicas sometimes called “superfakes”, “dupes”, “1 to 1” products or “mirror quality” goods.
A more convincing counterfeit may be more likely to compete with an authentic product. A cheap imitation may serve a separate market.
The Court’s decision reflects that distinction: not all counterfeit transactions cause the same type of loss.
Why did the reputational damage claim fail?
The brands also sought damages for harm to their reputation.
The Court rejected that claim as speculative and unsupported.
It found that purchasers were more likely to know they were buying counterfeit goods from an unauthorised seller. There was no sufficient evidence that they believed the goods came from the brands or blamed the brands for their quality.
What should brand owners take from the case?
-
Proving infringement does not automatically prove the amount of loss.
-
Not every counterfeit transaction equals a lost genuine sale.
-
The price and quality of the counterfeit may affect damages.
-
Reputational harm requires evidence.
-
Social media, WhatsApp, supplier and payment records can be crucial.
-
Influencers and online sellers are not insulated from trade mark enforcement.
The takeaway
LVMH recovered:
-
£200,000 for displaced genuine sales; plus
-
£13,000 assessed on a notional royalty basis.
But it recovered nothing for alleged reputational harm because the evidence was not there.
For brand owners, the message is clear: it is not enough to prove counterfeiting. You must also prove what the counterfeiting cost the business.
IP Solved assists businesses with trade mark protection, online enforcement and strategies for responding to counterfeit goods.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Business owners should seek advice tailored to their circumstances from a qualified intellectual property professional.
