<p>今年夏天，一系列 Costco 的连帽衫、夹克和裤子迅速走红。消费者声称它们看起来和感觉上与他们最喜欢的 Lululemon 产品非常相似——尤其是 “subca” 连帽衫、“define” 夹克和 “ABC” 裤子——但价格却低得多。例如，Lululemon 的 “Scuba” 连帽衫在公司网站上的零售价可高达 118 美元，而 Costco 的类似产品仅售 8 美元。</p>
<p>在七月，Lululemon 对 Costco 提起诉讼，指控其 “令人困惑的相似” 商品侵犯了商标，导致公司损失了利润和声誉损害。不幸的是，Lululemon 并不是唯一一个面临这种情况的品牌。被社交媒体社区称为 “dupes” 的病毒性仿制品现在似乎无处不在（“dupe” 这个词在 TikTok 上的帖子数量已达到 360,000 条！）。</p>
<p>为什么会这样？随着商品成本的持续上升，消费者对价格的关注超过了对 “真品” 的追求。令人震惊的是，一项调查发现，超过 8 成（81.6%）的购物者认为 Costco 应该继续生产其 Lululemon 的仿制品。</p>
<p>这种对仿制品日益增长的需求并没有被零售商忽视，许多零售商正在施压制造商以跟上。然而，看似聪明的商业举措并非没有风险。以下是零售制造商在跳上 “仿制品” 潮流之前应该问自己的几个常见问题。</p>
<h3><strong>仿制品与假冒商品之间有什么区别？</strong></h3>
<p>假冒商品通常直接复制品牌名称并模仿商标。有时，甚至购买产品的人也可能不知道它是假冒的。针对假冒商品的法律案件通常比较简单，因为误导消费者的意图是明确的，复制的商标几乎是完全相同的。</p>
<p>而 “仿制品” 则往往提出更微妙的法律问题。它们通常不直接复制商标或标志，而是模仿产品的外观和感觉——例如形状、颜色或美学。</p>
<p>去年最令人震惊的仿制品之一是病毒式传播的 “Wirkin” 包——沃尔玛以 80 美元的价格仿制了价值超过 10,000 美元的爱马仕 Birkin 手袋。沃尔玛的版本没有爱马仕的商标，但显然这个包是模仿品：模仿了标志性的形状、硬件、带子和装饰品。其他最近的病毒式例子包括 Target 的 Miu Miu 凉鞋仿制品和亚马逊上的 Chloe 包仿制品。</p>
<h3><strong>何时仿制品在法律上越过商标侵权的界限？</strong></h3>
<p>某些形状、风格和颜色在品牌之间不可避免地会保持一致——这一直是如此。然而，当两个产品如此相似，以至于消费者可能会混淆一个品牌与另一个品牌时，就会发生商标侵权。例如，在 Costco 和 Lululemon 之间的诉讼中，Lululemon 认为 “普通消费者” 无法区分他们的 118 美元的紧身裤和 Costco 的 8 美元仿制品。</p>
<h3><strong>零售制造商应该加入仿制品潮流吗？</strong></h3>
<p>虽然加入病毒式仿制品潮流的诱惑很大，但制造商应该抵制这种冲动。这样做会直接使他们面临高额的诉讼风险——这些诉讼他们很可能会输。律师费、法庭费用和和解谈判可能会使零售商和/或产品背后的制造商损失数百万美元的法律费用。</p>
<p>此外，依赖仿制品而不是打造独特的品牌风格可能会造成声誉损害。消费者可能会质疑一个品牌的独特性和质量，尤其是当它不断模仿其他品牌时。</p>
<p>对于那些决定冒险的品牌，重要的是要谨慎行事。品牌应确保在其产品或包装上不包含其他品牌的名称或标志。此外，在社交媒体上使用 “仿制品” 这个流行词可能看起来像是一种聪明的营销策略（例如：“这款连帽衫是 Lululemon 的仿制品！”），但这可能表明你有意混淆消费者，从而加强侵权的主张。</p>
<h3><strong>品牌可以采取什么措施来保护自己免受模仿者的侵害？</strong></h3>
<p>品牌可以通过在所有相关市场尽早注册商标和设计专利来保护自己免受模仿者的侵害，从而确保对其名称、标志和独特产品特征的独占权利。</p>
<p>此外，品牌应积极监控在线市场，如亚马逊、eBay 和 TikTok Shop，以查找未经授权的卖家或假冒商品。通过发出停止侵权信和与市场合作以移除侵权产品，迅速采取行动对于维护品牌完整性至关重要。</p>
<p>品牌还应确保尽早聘请商标或知识产权（IP）律师。他们可以帮助制定策略，以确保保护不仅存在于美国，还存在于全球。</p>
<p>在社交媒体时代，品牌面临着创造病毒式产品的巨大压力。仿制品看起来是一个稳赚不赔的选择：通过复制已经受到消费者欢迎的产品，品牌可以以低价在 TikTok 或 Instagram 上吸引注意，同时跳过漫长而复杂的产品开发过程。然而，正如谚语所说，如果事情听起来太好以至于不真实，那它可能就是不真实的。仿制品使品牌面临高额的法律诉讼和显著的声誉风险。我的建议是？成功的品牌建立在原创性之上，而不是模仿。</p>
<hr/>
<p><em>Josh Gerben, Esq. 是一位全国知名的商标律师，也是</em> <em>Gerben IP</em> <em>的创始人和负责人。自 2008 年成立该公司以来，他已监督注册超过 8,000 个商标，并处理超过 500 起商标争议。Gerben 的业务专注于为客户建立和维护全球商标组合。他经常被 CNBC、CNN、《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》等主要媒体引用，被广泛认为是商标法的权威。</em></p>

露露乐蒙

开市客

<p>好市多的新系列平价服装引发了露露乐蒙的诉讼，后者声称由于与其产品的相似性构成商标侵权。“仿品” 的兴起——流行品牌的平价仿制品——在消费者中越来越受到欢迎，许多人更倾向于选择低价而非品牌忠诚。零售商被敦促在生产仿品时要谨慎，因为这可能导致昂贵的法律纠纷和对品牌声誉的潜在损害。为了防止模仿者，品牌应注册商标并监控在线市场以查找未经授权的产品</p>

<p>This summer, a new line of Costco hoodies, jackets and pants went viral. Consumers claimed that they looked and felt very similar to their Lululemon favorites – namely the “subca” hoodie, “define” jacket and “ABC” pants – but at a fraction of the cost. The Lululemon “Scuba” hoodie, for example, can retail for up to $118 on the company’s website, while the Costco lookalike costs $8.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>今年夏天，一系列 Costco 的连帽衫、夹克和裤子迅速走红。消费者声称它们看起来和感觉上与他们最喜欢的 Lululemon 产品非常相似——尤其是 “subca” 连帽衫、“define” 夹克和 “ABC” 裤子——但价格却低得多。例如，Lululemon 的 “Scuba” 连帽衫在公司网站上的零售价可高达 118 美元，而 Costco 的类似产品仅售 8 美元。</p>
</div><p>In July, Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco, alleging that its “confusingly similar” items crossed the line into trademark infringement, costing the company lost profits and reputation damages. Unfortunately, Lululemon is not alone. Viral knockoffs, known to the social media community as “dupes,” are now seemingly everywhere (the term “dupe” now has 360,000 posts on TikTok alone!).</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在七月，Lululemon 对 Costco 提起诉讼，指控其 “令人困惑的相似” 商品侵犯了商标，导致公司损失了利润和声誉损害。不幸的是，Lululemon 并不是唯一一个面临这种情况的品牌。被社交媒体社区称为 “dupes” 的病毒性仿制品现在似乎无处不在（“dupe” 这个词在 TikTok 上的帖子数量已达到 360,000 条！）。</p>
</div><p>Why? As the cost of goods continues to rise, consumers care more about affordability than buying “the real thing.” Shockingly, one survey found that more than 8 out of 10 (81.6%) of shoppers think Costco should keep making its Lululemon dupes.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>为什么会这样？随着商品成本的持续上升，消费者对价格的关注超过了对 “真品” 的追求。令人震惊的是，一项调查发现，超过 8 成（81.6%）的购物者认为 Costco 应该继续生产其 Lululemon 的仿制品。</p>
</div><p>This growing demand for dupes is not lost on retailers, and many are pressuring manufacturers to keep up. However, what seems like a smart business move doesn’t come without its risks. Below are some of the most common questions retail manufacturers should ask themselves before jumping on the “dupe” bandwagon.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这种对仿制品日益增长的需求并没有被零售商忽视，许多零售商正在施压制造商以跟上。然而，看似聪明的商业举措并非没有风险。以下是零售制造商在跳上 “仿制品” 潮流之前应该问自己的几个常见问题。</p>
</div><h3><strong>What is the Difference Between Dupes and Counterfeit Goods?</strong></h3>
<div class="lb-trans"><h3><strong>仿制品与假冒商品之间有什么区别？</strong></h3>
</div><p>Counterfeit goods typically directly copy brand names and imitate logos. Sometimes, even the person purchasing the product may not be aware that it is counterfeit. Legal cases against counterfeits are usually straightforward, because the intent to mislead consumers is clear and the copied trademarks are nearly identical.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>假冒商品通常直接复制品牌名称并模仿商标。有时，甚至购买产品的人也可能不知道它是假冒的。针对假冒商品的法律案件通常比较简单，因为误导消费者的意图是明确的，复制的商标几乎是完全相同的。</p>
</div><p>“Dupes,” on the other hand, often present more nuanced legal questions. They typically do not directly copy trademarks or logos, but the <em>trade dress</em>. Trade dress is the look and feel of a product – like the shape, color or aesthetic.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>而 “仿制品” 则往往提出更微妙的法律问题。它们通常不直接复制商标或标志，而是模仿产品的外观和感觉——例如形状、颜色或美学。</p>
</div><p>One of the most egregious examples of a dupe was last year’s viral “Wirkin” bag – Walmart’s $80 dupe of Hermès’ luxury $10,000+ Birkin handbag. Walmart’s version lacked the Hermès logos, but it was clear that the bag was a copycat: imitating the signature shape, hardware, straps and charms. Other recent viral examples include Target’s Miu Miu sandal dupes and Chloe bag lookalikes on Amazon.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>去年最令人震惊的仿制品之一是病毒式传播的 “Wirkin” 包——沃尔玛以 80 美元的价格仿制了价值超过 10,000 美元的爱马仕 Birkin 手袋。沃尔玛的版本没有爱马仕的商标，但显然这个包是模仿品：模仿了标志性的形状、硬件、带子和装饰品。其他最近的病毒式例子包括 Target 的 Miu Miu 凉鞋仿制品和亚马逊上的 Chloe 包仿制品。</p>
</div><h3><strong>When Does a Dupe Legally Cross the Line into Trademark Infringement?</strong></h3>
<div class="lb-trans"><h3><strong>何时仿制品在法律上越过商标侵权的界限？</strong></h3>
</div><p>Some shapes, styles and colors will inevitably be consistent across brands – this has always been the case. However, trademark infringement occurs when two products are so similar that consumers are likely to confuse one brand with another. For example, in the lawsuit between Costco and Lululemon, Lululemon argues that the “ordinary consumer” would not be able to tell the difference between their $118 leggings and Costco’s $8 dupes.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>某些形状、风格和颜色在品牌之间不可避免地会保持一致——这一直是如此。然而，当两个产品如此相似，以至于消费者可能会混淆一个品牌与另一个品牌时，就会发生商标侵权。例如，在 Costco 和 Lululemon 之间的诉讼中，Lululemon 认为 “普通消费者” 无法区分他们的 118 美元的紧身裤和 Costco 的 8 美元仿制品。</p>
</div><h3><strong>Should Retail Manufacturers Hop on the Dupe Bandwagon?</strong></h3>
<div class="lb-trans"><h3><strong>零售制造商应该加入仿制品潮流吗？</strong></h3>
</div><p>While it’s tempting to hop on the viral-worthy copycat bandwagon, manufacturers should resist the urge. In doing so, they directly expose themselves to costly lawsuits – ones they are likely to lose. Between attorney fees, court costs and settlement negotiations, this can cost a retailer and/or the manufacturer behind the product millions of dollars in legal fees.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>虽然加入病毒式仿制品潮流的诱惑很大，但制造商应该抵制这种冲动。这样做会直接使他们面临高额的诉讼风险——这些诉讼他们很可能会输。律师费、法庭费用和和解谈判可能会使零售商和/或产品背后的制造商损失数百万美元的法律费用。</p>
</div><p>Plus, relying on dupes instead of curating a distinct brand style could cause reputational damage. Consumers may question the uniqueness and quality of a brand that consistently copies others.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此外，依赖仿制品而不是打造独特的品牌风格可能会造成声誉损害。消费者可能会质疑一个品牌的独特性和质量，尤其是当它不断模仿其他品牌时。</p>
</div><p>For those that decide to take the risk, it’s important to tread carefully. Brands should make sure not to include another brand’s name or logo anywhere on their product or its packaging. Also, using the “dupe” buzzword on social media might seem like a smart marketing tactic (e.g. “this hoodie is a Lululemon dupe!”), but it can demonstrate that you intended to confuse consumers and strengthen claims of infringement.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>对于那些决定冒险的品牌，重要的是要谨慎行事。品牌应确保在其产品或包装上不包含其他品牌的名称或标志。此外，在社交媒体上使用 “仿制品” 这个流行词可能看起来像是一种聪明的营销策略（例如：“这款连帽衫是 Lululemon 的仿制品！”），但这可能表明你有意混淆消费者，从而加强侵权的主张。</p>
</div><h3><strong>What can Brands do to Protect Themselves from Imitators?</strong></h3>
<div class="lb-trans"><h3><strong>品牌可以采取什么措施来保护自己免受模仿者的侵害？</strong></h3>
</div><p>Brands can protect themselves from imitators by registering trademarks and design patents early across all relevant markets, securing exclusive rights to their names, logos and unique product features.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>品牌可以通过在所有相关市场尽早注册商标和设计专利来保护自己免受模仿者的侵害，从而确保对其名称、标志和独特产品特征的独占权利。</p>
</div><p>Additionally, brands should actively monitor online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay and TikTok Shop for unauthorized sellers or counterfeit listings. Prompt enforcement through cease-and-desist letters and collaboration with marketplaces to remove infringing products is essential to maintaining brand integrity.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此外，品牌应积极监控在线市场，如亚马逊、eBay 和 TikTok Shop，以查找未经授权的卖家或假冒商品。通过发出停止侵权信和与市场合作以移除侵权产品，迅速采取行动对于维护品牌完整性至关重要。</p>
</div><p>Brands also should be sure to engage a trademark or intellectual property (IP) attorney early on. They can help create strategies to ensure protection exists not only in the U.S. but around the world.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>品牌还应确保尽早聘请商标或知识产权（IP）律师。他们可以帮助制定策略，以确保保护不仅存在于美国，还存在于全球。</p>
</div><p>In the social media age, brands are under extreme pressure to create viral-worthy products. Dupes seem like a slam dunk: by copying products already known to be popular with consumers, brands can grab attention on TikTok or Instagram with low prices while skipping the long, complex process of product development. However, as the adage goes, if it’s too good to be true, it probably is. Dupes expose brands to costly legal battles and significant reputational risks. My advice? Successful brands are built on originality – not imitation.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在社交媒体时代，品牌面临着创造病毒式产品的巨大压力。仿制品看起来是一个稳赚不赔的选择：通过复制已经受到消费者欢迎的产品，品牌可以以低价在 TikTok 或 Instagram 上吸引注意，同时跳过漫长而复杂的产品开发过程。然而，正如谚语所说，如果事情听起来太好以至于不真实，那它可能就是不真实的。仿制品使品牌面临高额的法律诉讼和显著的声誉风险。我的建议是？成功的品牌建立在原创性之上，而不是模仿。</p>
</div><hr/>
<div class="lb-trans"><hr/>
</div><p><em>Josh Gerben, Esq. is a nationally recognized trademark attorney and the Founder and Principal of</em> <em>Gerben IP</em> <em>. Since launching the firm in 2008, he has overseen the registration of over 8,000 trademarks and handled over 500 trademark disputes. Gerben’s practice focuses on building and defending global trademark portfolios for clients. Frequently quoted by major media outlets like CNBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, he is widely regarded as a leading authority in trademark law.</em></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><em>Josh Gerben, Esq. 是一位全国知名的商标律师，也是</em> <em>Gerben IP</em> <em>的创始人和负责人。自 2008 年成立该公司以来，他已监督注册超过 8,000 个商标，并处理超过 500 起商标争议。Gerben 的业务专注于为客户建立和维护全球商标组合。他经常被 CNBC、CNN、《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》等主要媒体引用，被广泛认为是商标法的权威。</em></p>
</div>

是否要复制他人产品？商标律师发表看法