Today’s read: 5 minutes
June 26, 2026: Luxury and fashion companies are not just selling products or policing trademarks. They are focused on shaping who gets access to scarce goods, how far third parties can go in borrowing from their brands, whether lookalike products cross the line into infringement, and how long legacy assets can remain legally alive.
Ferrari’s denial that Luce buyers will receive preferential access to future limited-edition cars does not end the conversation. If anything, it highlights how central allocation has become to the modern luxury market.
Across supercars, handbags, watches, and jewelry, the most valuable thing a brand can offer is often not the product itself, but the chance to buy it. Ferrari’s comments are notable because they show the company thinking about allocation not only in terms of sales, but in terms of the kind of market it wants the Luce to enter.
Ferrari’s Chief Marketing and Commercial Officer Enrico Galliera framed the issue in terms of residual value, resale behavior, and the risk of creating “negative ambassadors” – in other words, the health of the market after the point of sale.
That logic is familiar. Hermès has been forced to defend itself in litigation over allegations that access to Birkin bags was conditioned on the purchase of other goods. Ferrari is not facing the same claims, but both situations still reflect the same broader reality: luxury brands are not simply managing scarcity. They are managing the pathways through which scarce products reach the market and in turn, shaping who gets to participate in the value those products generate.
> And the competition is not limited to the brands themselves. In the secondary market, companies are increasingly battling over how to package and monetize access to Hermès bags – as reflected in Vivrelle’s recent decision to abandon the “Privée” name for its invite-only offering, undoubtedly a response to behinds-the-scenes clash with Birkin reseller Privé Porter.
>> The takeaway: Allocation is no longer just a sales tool or a loyalty perk. It is part of how luxury brands design the primary and secondary markets for their goods – influencing not only who gets access, but how products circulate, how long they are held, and what happens to their value after the sale.
This week brought a useful temperature check for brands trying to use trademark, trade dress, and related claims against lookalike products.
> Coach and Quince agreed to dismiss their handbag dupe dispute without prejudice, bringing an early end to a case that stood to test whether Coach could successfully wage trade dress and unfair competition claims to challenge Quince bags that allegedly copied the look of its Rogue and Soho Flap styles – albeit without using Coach branding.
> The resolution came just days after Glow Recipe, MCoBeauty, and Target notified the court that they had reached a confidential settlement in their beauty dupe dispute.
> And it follows shortly after Quince prevailed at trial in Deckers’ design patent case over UGG-style boots.
Taken together, the outcomes are notable less for what they say about the merits of any one claim than for what they suggest about the anti-dupe playbook more broadly.
>> The takeaway: Anti-dupe litigation remains part of the enforcement toolkit, but the recent run of settlements and mixed outcomes shows how hard these cases can be to win – especially when they turn on product design, packaging, or other aesthetic cues rather than logos or brand names.
Hermès’ win against Le Bidon Français and Patagonia’s ongoing fight with Pattie Gonia raise a similar underlying question: when does borrowing from a brand become building a business around it?
> In Hermès’ case, the Paris court appeared focused less on whether the objects at issue could be framed as satirical or artistic and more on how Hermès’ marks were used to market and sell them. The decision suggests that once a trademark becomes part of the commercial presentation of a product – rather than merely part of an expressive work – defenses grounded in art or parody become harder to sustain.
> Patagonia’s suit against Pattie Gonia is different in both posture and public stakes, but it reflects a related tension. Patagonia alleges that what began as activism evolved into a broader commercial enterprise involving merchandise, trademark filings, and overlapping goods and services. Pattie Gonia, for her part, has framed the dispute as an effort to strip her of a name and advocacy -tied identity. The result is a case that sits at the intersection of trademark law, activism, and commercialization.
Put together, the cases suggest that brands are increasingly testing where reference ends and commercialization begins. The question is no longer just whether a third party used a mark, but whether they used the brand itself – its imagery, its associations, and its cultural capital – in furtherance of a commercial project of their own.
>> The takeaway: For brands confronting branded art objects, advocacy-driven merchandise, and other hybrid uses, the key question is whether a defendant is commenting on the brand or commercializing it.
An early victory for Nike in the Total 90 dispute offers a useful reminder that old brand value can remain surprisingly difficult to dislodge.
The court’s refusal to block Nike’s use of its revived “Total 90” branding turned in part on evidence that the mark may not have disappeared from commerce altogether after Nike’s registration lapsed. That is what makes the ruling notable beyond the immediate dispute. It suggests that the amount of activity needed to keep a legacy mark alive may be lower than a later filer would hope, particularly where the original brand owner can point to even relatively modest post-lapse use.
That dynamic is likely to matter more as brands continue mining their archives for dormant lines, nostalgia-era branding, and heritage sub-labels. In a separate Dean & DeLuca case, the same underlying question is surfacing well beyond sportswear: when does a reduced footprint or lapsed registration create an opening for someone else to step in and commercialize a legacy name?
>> The takeaway: In revival-era trademark fights, a lapsed registration does not necessarily mean a brand asset is up for grabs. Legacy value can persist long after a registration falls away, provided the original owner has enough use – and enough residual goodwill – to keep the mark alive.
This week’s stories suggest that luxury and fashion brands are act less like sellers and more like market architects.
Ferrari is trying to shape how scarce products move through the market. Coach, Glow Recipe, and Deckers cases show both the appeal and the limits of anti-dupe litigation as brands try to control lookalikes through trade dress, trademark, and design patent law. Hermès and Patagonia are each testing the limits of third-party efforts to build commercial projects around the imagery, associations, and values attached to its well-established brands.
Nike’s Total 90 win shows that even dormant branding can retain enough life to complicate later claims to ownership. And Tiffany’s Bird on a Rock registration is a reminder that brands are still working to turn heritage design into proprietary brand assets in the first place.
The through line is once again control: over who gets access, how products circulate, and what the brand comes to signify once it leaves the company’s hands.