Social Media Influencer Ordered to Pay £213,000 for Selling Counterfeit Luxury Goods in Trade Mark Infringement Case

In a significant judgment handed down by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), social media influencer Georgia Aldridge and her company, Rolo Fashion Limited, have been ordered to pay £213,000 in damages for trade mark infringement related to the sale of counterfeit luxury goods. The claimants in the case are prominent fashion powerhouses Fendi Italia SRL, Loewe S.A, Christian Dior Couture S.A, Celine S.A, and their parent company LMVH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE.

The judgment, granted in January 2025, followed a finding that Ms Aldridge and Rolo Fashion Limited were liable for selling counterfeit products bearing the claimants’ registered trade marks. The court then proceeded to determine the appropriate level of damages payable to the claimants.

Throughout the proceedings, the defendants were repeatedly ordered to disclose comprehensive evidence concerning their sales activities. This included bank statements, supplier details, and invoices related to the counterfeit goods sold. However, the defendants’ disclosures were incomplete and inconsistent. The court noted that Ms Aldridge appeared to have provided minimal evidence, possibly in an attempt to limit the damages payable. The judge explicitly stated that she should not benefit from her failure to properly engage with the disclosure process.

The claimants asserted three types of damage: reputational harm, lost profits from sales displaced by counterfeit goods, and lost licensing income, with the latter two presented as alternative claims. The judge confirmed that the general legal principles governing damages in intellectual property cases were undisputed. It was affirmed that claimants can recover lost profits on sales they would have made but for the infringement.

Where claimants cannot demonstrate lost sales caused by infringement, the court may apply the "user principle," which awards a reasonable royalty on infringing sales. Although there has been some judicial hesitation about applying the user principle in trade mark cases—particularly where the mark is not licensed—the judge held that compensation must still be available where customers would not have purchased from the trade mark owner but bought from the infringer instead. Thus, the user principle was confirmed as applicable in trade mark infringement cases and was relevant here.

The claimants’ evidence included a witness statement from Nicolas Lambert, Head of Online Brand Protection for LMVH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE. Mr Lambert provided detailed calculations on average sales and profits. He estimated an average profit of £285.63 per genuine sale, which the judge rounded down to £280 for the purposes of calculation.

Using the limited bank statement evidence provided by Ms Aldridge, the judge calculated a total of 4,752 infringing sales. Applying a 15% substitution rate—the estimated percentage of infringing sales that displaced genuine sales—the court found 713 lost sales. This resulted in a loss of profits amounting to £199,640, rounded up to £200,000.

For the remaining 4,039 sales that did not displace genuine sales, the judge applied the user principle. Due to the absence of evidence from either party on an appropriate royalty rate, the court assumed a conservative minimum royalty of 3% based on the defendants’ average selling price of £110. This calculation yielded a royalty of £13,328.70, rounded down to £13,000.

Combining the lost profits award of £200,000 with the user principle royalty of £13,000, the total damages awarded amounted to £213,000.

Claims for reputational damage were dismissed entirely. The judge found Mr Lambert’s evidence on reputational harm speculative and held that purchasers were aware they were buying counterfeit goods rather than genuine products. Consequently, arguments based on dilution and tarnishment were rejected due to insufficient evidence. Additionally, a claim for further damages under Regulation 3 of the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006, which addresses knowing and deliberate infringements, was refused. This claim largely duplicated the rejected reputational damage argument, and the unfair profits claim was inadequately developed.

While the substitution rate evidence from both parties was imperfect, the judge nonetheless fixed a damages figure that acknowledged the claimants’ detailed submissions and accounted for the defendants’ inadequate disclosure.

This case underscores that the user principle is a viable remedy in trade mark infringement cases for sales that cannot be shown to have displaced genuine sales, even absent direct evidence of licensing practices. Courts may apply a modest minimum royalty rather than awarding no damages.

Furthermore, vague assertions of dilution, tarnishment, or consumer confusion will not succeed without specific, tailored evidence.

The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure orders, noting that the order in this case was straightforward and that Ms Aldridge failed to comply adequately despite having the means to do so.