The Simulacrum of the Copy: Aritzia's 'Dupe' Trademark and the Legalization of Hyperreality in Global Fashion IP
Contemporary critical theory identifies a cultural state, defined by Jean Baudrillard, where the capacity to distinguish between reality and its representation has collapsed entirely: the hyperreal condition. This is not merely the production of fakes or copies, but rather the generation by models of a real without origin or reality," a realm where signs substitute for the genuine experience they once represented. The fashion industry provides a perfect, accelerated example of this phenomenon, as aesthetics have long become subservient to constructed symbolic codes engineered by capital. Brands like Louis Vuitton exemplify this by reproducing proprietary symbols as simulacra, signs emptied of intrinsic use-value yet saturated with hierarchical meaning.
The Simulacrum of Luxury: The instantly recognizable Louis Vuitton monogram, a perfect example of a proprietary symbol that has transcended its material origins to become a signifier of prestige and hierarchical meaning in the hyperreal fashion landscape.
Aritzia’s aggressive move to trademark the phrase "Aritzia Dupe" represents an empirical, legal attempt to impose structure upon this dissolving distinction. The brand seeks to regulate the very language of imitation, striving to define and control the "real" that has emerged from digital discourse. This is not a defense of the product; it is the institutionalization of the sign system itself. The traditional legal mandate to protect the authentic object is deemed insufficient when the culture itself favors the simulation. By attempting to appropriate the term that signifies the copy, Aritzia elevates the simulated item—the "dupe"—to a position of market authenticity, effectively making the simulation the only legible truth about the product in the hyperreal marketplace.
The Elevation of the Copy: The search for the perfect aesthetic template extends across fast-fashion and athleisure brands. The widespread embrace of the "dupe" elevates the simulated item to a position of market authenticity, compelling Aritzia to attempt legal control over the language that validates this shift.
Sign-Value and the Crisis of Prestige
To understand why this legal pivot is necessary, one must recognize the philosophical shift in how luxury is valued. The value of commodities is increasingly determined by sign-value: the inherent expression and mark of style, prestige, luxury, and social power.
The rise of the "dupe" directly attacks the integrity of this sign-value system. When a fast-fashion garment perfectly replicates the aesthetic (the sign-value) of a premium item, it succeeds precisely by extracting that symbolic value while stripping away the accompanying excessive exchange-value (the high price point). The dupe operates as a hyper-efficient mechanism for isolating and reproducing the constructed prestige. This intense, targeted extraction destabilizes the financial hierarchy that sustains the original brand’s exclusivity, exposing the crisis chronicled in "The Luster Restored". Since luxury is already a constructed system of signs, the only remaining strategy for the "original" is to cease fighting the copy’s existence and instead fight for control of the sign that acknowledges the copy’s success. The imitation generates value for the original, compelling the brand to secure a proprietary claim over the imitation’s signifier.
The Genealogy of the "Dupe": Institutionalizing Non-Confusion
The pivot from enduring "knockoffs" to actively responding to "dupes" is fundamentally a semiotic event that confirms entry into hyperreality. Historically, owning a replica carried a stigma. However, the digital age has fostered a profound cultural acceptance of the "dupe," which is now often celebrated as a badge of honor and a "smart choice".
For Gen Z and Millennials, who prioritize "aesthetic access" over brand allegiance, the cachet comes from finding the look affordably. The key distinction here is the institutionalization of non-confusion. Traditional trademark enforcement hinges upon proving a "likelihood of confusion"—that consumers are misled into believing the cheaper product is the original. Yet consumers openly search for and share dupes, often proudly highlighting the price difference and source. Because dupe culture thrives on this intentional non-confusion, the brands' traditional legal tools are rendered obsolete. Abandoning the legal defense of the material object in favor of claiming proprietary rights over the cultural discourse surrounding the imitation is a strategic acknowledgment that the copy functions as proprietary marketing capital.
The Four Orders of Simulacra and the Fashion IP Loophole
Mapping Reproduction onto Baudrillard’s Stages: The Precession of Imitation
The history of design replication in fashion can be rigorously mapped onto Baudrillard’s four stages of the simulacrum, revealing how structural legal weaknesses have facilitated the transition into the hyperreal.
Mapping the Simulacrum: A diagram illustrating the Four Stages of the Simulacrum, defining the progression from a sign that reflects reality (Stage One) to a pure simulacrum that bears no relation to any original reality (Stage Four), a framework perfectly mirrored by the evolution of fashion replication.
The Sacramental Order: High couture, where the designer is believed to be the clear original source.
The Order of Maleficence: High-quality counterfeiting, where the intent is explicitly to deceive the consumer.
The Order of Sorcery: The era of modern fast fashion knockoffs. The legal vacuum in intellectual property law—where design protection is tenuous or non-existent—means that the concept of an "original" garment is structurally absent. The fast-fashion copy exploits this legal silence, substituting the aesthetic for the real.
The Piracy Paradox and the Commodification of the Aesthetic Template
The economic structure of the fashion world is deeply paradoxical, functioning contrary to the standard IP theory that copying stifles innovation. Instead, the industry operates under a "piracy paradox," where widespread imitation and replication are not merely tolerated but actively stimulate demand and innovation, benefiting the industry as a whole. As designer Ralph Lauren stated, "You copy. Forty-five years of copying; that's why I'm here."
The Piracy Paradox: Designer Ralph Lauren, who acknowledged, "You copy. Forty-five years of copying; that's why I'm here." His success confirms that imitation, or the extraction of the aesthetic template, is not only tolerated but actively stimulates demand and innovation within the industry.
This phenomenon suggests that the premium brand's true economic output is not the physical garment itself, but the cultural aesthetic template it generates, as evidenced by the volume of its imitations. A product achieves "must-have" status precisely because it is deemed worthy of duplication. If the imitation is the source of value, the brand must find a way to legally incorporate and control the sign of that successful imitation, turning what was once a liability into a proprietary asset.
The Leap to Stage 4: Authenticating the Signifier
The trademark attempt is the active moment of institutionalizing the transition to the fourth stage: the pure simulacrum. This stage is characterized by the sign having no relationship to any reality whatsoever.
In this context, Aritzia is substituting the sign of the copy for the reality of the original. The brand legally asserts that the most definitive market truth about its product—the fact that it is successfully imitated—requires legal control over the very language that signifies that imitation. This move attempts to claim ownership of the cultural effect of being duped. The brand is no longer defending a physical product; it is regulating the semiotic exchange surrounding the product’s disappearance into the realm of copies.
The Legal Enshrinement of Simulation: Trademarking the Dupe
Aritzia’s Application: Securing the Semiotic Weapon
The legal strategy employed by Aritzia marks a significant shift in intellectual property enforcement, moving the battleground from the factory floor to the digital lexicon. Aritzia filed trademark applications in both the U.S. and Canada for the phrase "Aritzia Dupe," following Lululemon's precedent of registering "LULULEMON DUPE."
This maneuver is designed to gain control over the commercial discourse within social media. The objective is not to stop the physical copying, which is often difficult to prove legally, but to impose a regulatory tax on the language of imitation, thereby reclaiming some proprietary control over the cultural circulation of the aesthetic template.
The Institutionalization of the Stage 4 Simulacrum and the Generic Trap
The legal viability of the "Brand + Dupe" trademark is critically challenged by the risk of genericide (the term becoming so widespread it is generic). The term "dupe" is already highly descriptive in the consumer vernacular. For the trademark to be valid, Aritzia must successfully argue that "Aritzia Dupe" has acquired a secondary meaning that identifies Aritzia as the source of the conversation surrounding the copy. The ultimate irony embedded in this legal pursuit is that the brand must continuously highlight how frequently its items are duped, thus confirming the descriptive and arguably generic nature of the imitation, while simultaneously claiming proprietary rights over the compound phrase.
If a court ultimately approves the application, it will have compelled the legal system to affirm that the sign of the copy is a primary, source-identifying feature of the original brand. This fundamentally validates the shift toward hyperreality as the regulatory benchmark.
The Irony of Enforcement: The Implosion of Legal Truth
The Paradoxical Legal Duplicity: Fighting Confusion while Claiming the Non-Confused
The most revealing theoretical consequence of the "Brand + Dupe" strategy is the implosion of legal distinctions it requires, confirming Baudrillard's observation that the postmodern condition works against previously essential distinctions. Lululemon’s ongoing legal activities provide the most unmistakable empirical evidence of this necessary theoretical schizophrenia, as analyzed in "The 'Monopoly on a Vibe'".
Lululemon must sustain a dual legal identity to maximize profit: it must argue that consumer confusion is sufficiently widespread to justify trademark lawsuits, while simultaneously relying on consumer awareness and non-confusion to support the protectability of the "Dupe" trademark. The brand has conceded that it has lost control over the object and the consumer's ultimate behavior; its only remaining control is over the discursive framework surrounding its loss.
The New Logic of Brand Equity: The Cybernetic Signifier
The phenomenon of the dupe signals a deep erosion of symbolic value within established brands. Allegiance shifts away from the producer (Aritzia) toward the curator (the influencer or platform that locates and validates the dupe). The consumer gains status not from ownership of the exclusive original, but from the intellectual achievement of obtaining the perfect substitution, embodying the principle of "Value Beyond Price".
The trademark attempt is therefore an aggressive attempt to control the total cybernetic signifier. By regulating the language associated with its imitation, Aritzia seeks to impose a proprietary fee on the circulation of the cultural template it originated. The registration of "Aritzia Dupe" is an acknowledgement that the sign of imitation has become more economically potent and culturally resonant than the original product’s name alone. The brand seeks to transform the negative energy of imitation into a positive, regulatable stream of sign value.
The Legalization of the Pure Simulacrum
Aritzia’s trademark application for "Aritzia Dupe" transcends mere brand protection; it is a structural acknowledgment that the economic and cultural significance of the copy now fundamentally outweighs the original's material integrity. This is the definitive endpoint of the critique outlined by Baudrillard: the hyperreal condition is not just observed, but legally ratified.
The brand has surrendered the fight for the material "real," accepting the market’s determination that value resides in the symbolic template and the discourse surrounding its replication. By seeking to trademark the term of its own imitation, Aritzia performs the final act of substitution, forcing the legal system to validate the hyperreal state: the signifier of the copy has achieved institutional authenticity, and the simulation has become the new regulatory benchmark. This confirms that the actual enduring value lies in the Narrative, intentionally resistant to replication, as championed by The Curated Algorithm.
The Legalization of the Pure Simulacrum: The visual endpoint of the hyperreal condition—the signifier of the original (the logo) is left to decay as the cultural value of the brand shifts away from the physical garment and toward the discursive power of the "dupe" sign.
