They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but in fashion, it might also be an invitation to a lawsuit. Welcome to the age of dupes: clean, logo-free lookalikes that offer a “designer aesthetic” without the designer price tag. Once seen as harmless or even clever alternatives, these budget-friendly mimics are now becoming the subject of serious litigation.
The Coach v. Quince lawsuit isn’t just about two handbags, it’s about the future of accessible fashion, brand identity, and how the law draws the line between inspiration and infringement.
Case Overview
On April 4, 2025, Coach and its parent company, Tapestry Inc., filed a lawsuit against Last Brand, Inc. (aka Quince) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. At the heart of the complaint: allegations that Quince’s handbags copied the trade dress of Coach’s Rogue and Soho Flap bags. Specifically, Coach claims that Quince’s Italian Leather Medium Convertible Satchel and Buckle Detail Shoulder Bag bear “striking” resemblance to their own signature designs.
The legal basis? Four causes of action
1. Federal trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act
2. Common law trade dress infringement
3. Unfair competition under California’s §17200
4. Common law unfair competition
Coach argued that the key elements that make up its iconic bags, the stitching, silhouette, and hardware placements are non-functional, brand-identifying features, meaning they serve to distinguish Coach’s products from others in the market, not to improve utility.
The luxury company contended that Quince’s lookalike designs are likely to confuse consumers and unjustly prompt them to purchase from Quince instead of Coach, resulting in lost sales and damage to brand reputation, especially since similar aesthetics may not come with the same quality that Coach is known for.
Based on these claims, Coach sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, and disgorgement of profits-meaning they want Quince to return any profits earned from the alleged infringement. The company also demanded the recall and destruction of all infringing products. The stakes? High. The implications? Even higher.
This case highlights a growing trend in the fashion industry, where heritage brands are increasingly turning to trade dress law to combat the rise of legally ambiguous dupes.
The Legal Lens: When Trade Dress Becomes the Frontline
Think of trademarks as names and logos (hello, golden arches of McDonald’s), and trade dress as everything else that makes a product instantly recognisable-the shape, color combo, layout, packaging, and yes, even how something feels visually.
In fashion, trade dress is where brands go to protect what can’t be copyrighted. The shape of a Birkin. The red sole of a Louboutin. The pattern of Goyard. These design choices don’t just make something beautiful, they make it identifiable. And in the world of fashion IP, that’s gold.
But for trade dress to stand up in court, it has to be:
• Distinctive
• Non-functional
• Likely to cause confusion if copied
That’s the crux of this lawsuit. Coach believes Quince’s bags look enough like theirs to confuse buyers. Even if they’re not pretending to be Coach, they’re leaning on Coach’s design DNA to make sales.
The Rise of Dupes and the Fall of Legal Grey Areas
For years, legal teams fixated on fighting counterfeits products that passed themselves off as the real deal. But dupes changed the game. Many have built their business models around offering “designer-inspired” pieces that technically stay within legal boundaries.
The problem? Dupes increasingly piggybank on a brand’s equity without sharing any of the investment. It’s a kind of intellectual property free-riding that walks the tightrope of legality and Coach has had enough.
This case signals a legal pivot. Brands are no longer ignoring dupes. They’re litigating. And in doing so, they’re expanding the definition of what constitutes actionable infringement.
Gatekeeping or Guarding Brand Value?
There’s a deeper question here. Is Coach safeguarding years of creative labor, or gatekeeping fashion’s evolving accessibility? In a world where consumers value look over label, are brands defending uniqueness or resisting democratization?
Nothing comes from nowhere and fashion has always been inspired. But when that shared language becomes a business model for others, the law has to decide: when is it homage, and when is it theft?
What Happens Next: A Precedent in the Making?
Coach v. Quince could serve as a landmark case for mid-tier brands trying to protect their IP against lookalike labels. A ruling in Coach’s favor could strengthen the viability of trade dress as a tool not just for heritage houses, but for every designer seeking to preserve their signature.
It also invites businesses to reconsider their compliance strategy. As the dupe economy grows, so will the legal heat. What might have felt like “safe inspiration” yesterday could become tomorrow’s cease-and-desist.
The Bigger Picture: Culture, Consumption, and Copycats
This isn’t just a legal case, it’s a cultural commentary. Dupe culture thrives on two things: aspiration and affordability. It tells us who we want to be, even when our wallets say otherwise.
But it also reveals a hard truth: consumerism is addicted to shortcuts. In valuing the aesthetic over the original, we normalize imitation. And in doing so, we force the law to stretch, adapt, and redefine the boundaries of creativity.
Coach’s move isn’t just about Quince, it’s about all of us. About what we value, what we’re willing to pay for, and how far we’ll let inspiration go before it crosses a line.
Closing Thoughts
Fashion law isn’t just catching up, it’s setting the pace. The Coach v. Quince lawsuit doesn’t merely ask whether the bags are too similar. It asks whether brand identity can survive in a world built on lookalikes, algorithms, and aesthetic shortcuts.
As fashion lawyers, consumers, and creators, the real question isn’t “Who copied whom?” but “What are we protecting, and why?”
Sources Referred
- Dupes – NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law
- The difference between dupes and counterfeits: What consumers and IP Rights owners need to know – Kilburn & Strode
- Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc., No. 11-3303 (2d Cir. 2012) :: Justia
- Tapestry Inc. et al. v. Last Brand Inc. dba Quince – Complaint – The Fashion Law
- Nike and BAPE Settle Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
- Case Study: Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around – The Fashion Law
- Chanel v. The RealReal: Luxury Meets Resale – University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog
- The Second Lives of Luxury Goods: Trademark Issues Involving Resale, Customization and Upcycling
Editor-in-chief: Diya M. Kumar
Contributing writer: Vanshika Verma