IP, Luxury, and Letting Them Eat Dupes

How did a bag, designed in the 1980s during a chance encounter on an airplane, evolve into the cultural icon of wealth and status we know today?

The Hermès Birkin had always been synonymous with luxury and exclusivity, but it attained a cult-like status in the 2000s that transcended any other luxury handbag. This period was marked by the rise of celebrity and the peak of paparazzi culture. Birkins became a fixture in tabloids, draped over the arm of Paris Hilton, whose vast Birkin collection made her a target for the infamous Bling Ring, a group of teenage burglars known for breaking into celebrity homes. Or who could forget the iconic Sex and the City episode in which Samantha leverages her celebrity client to bypass the five-year Birkin waiting list? The most shocking part of the episode is perhaps that the bag cost just $4,000. The Birkin’s rise was symptomatic of larger societal trends of the early 2000s: ostentatious displays of wealth, the concepts of “celebrity” and “fame” for their own sake and the idea that this could be accessible to anyone. For many, the new American Dream involved owning a Birkin.

So, what happens when a symbol of exclusivity, wealth, and luxury, like the Birkin, is made accessible through a mass retail chain at a fraction of the cost?

It comes as little surprise that when replicas of the Birkin began appearing at Walmart for less than $100 in late 2024, an online frenzy ensued. While some were appalled, others rushed to buy one. A common thread seemed to stand out in the commentary though: People found something almost satisfying about seeing this unattainable luxury item get torn down a few pegs. The reaction speaks not only to the cultural relevance of the Birkin but also to the evolving conversations on the intersection of class, culture, and intellectual property law.

But why does the idea of "duping" the Birkin, specifically, strike such a chord? Unlike other knockoff luxury products, which buyers may earnestly hope to pass off as the real thing, Walmart Birkins (dubbed Wirkins for the working class) have an almost subversive, or cheeky appeal. Part of the appeal seems to lie in the fact  that it is a knockoff

I couldn’t help but wonder, is the Birkin the new Marie Antoinette? A symbol of uber-wealth and excess, primed for a symbolic takedown that would somehow even the playing field? In this analogy, Walmart serves as the proverbial guillotine. 

There is a Robin Hood-esque irony to the situation.The Birkin has always been unattainable to the masses, not  just due to cost but also to exclusivity.  So much so that Hermès found itself on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit  for violations of antitrust  and  unfair  competition laws, alleging that Hermès requires its buyers to purchase additional items before qualifying to purchase a Birkin. The popularity of these dupes is not just based on a desire to  own a luxury bag. It lies in the subversion of traditional power dynamics associated with luxury consumption, especially in a time marked by stark economic disparity. 

The Legal Landscape: Trademark Infringement and Dilution

In addition to the cultural schism caused by the Wirkin, there is a legal dynamic at play. Many were surprised that a lawsuit was never filed by Hermès, the French luxury house behind the Birkin. Perhaps it didn’t have to. As quickly as they appeared, Wirkins disappeared from shelves in early January 2025.  Although it appears that Hermès never filed suit, it likely took steps behind the scenes to address the issue. 

Hermès has been litigious about its intellectual property in the past. The company took legal action against NFT artist Mason Rothschild in 2022 over his MetaBirkins project, which digitally depicted the likeness of a Birkin bag. Hermès won the case, which is now on appeal. This legal victory serves as a warning to those who infringe on the Birkin’s likeness. Even without the Hermès logo, the Birkin’s distinct shape is protected under trade dress law, which prevents others from imitating the visual elements that make the bag instantly recognizable. Fashion designers often turn to trade dress to protect their designs in lieu of copyright protection, which is unavailable to “functional items” such as clothing and accessories. 

Under a  cause of action for trademark infringement, Hermès could argue that the Wirkin bags cause consumer confusion—specifically, that Walmart buyers could mistakenly believe they are purchasing a legitimate Hermès product. While this is unlikely for in-store purchasers, there is a stronger argument for  online shoppers who might view the knockoffs alongside legitimate, secondhand Birkins on Walmart’s online resale marketplace. Secondhand shoppers who appear later on in the supply-chain on sites like eBay or Poshmark may also genuinely confuse a Wirkin with a Birkin.

A second potential claim is one of trademark dilution. The Birkin carries undeniable cultural significance. By saturating the market with knockoffs, Wirkins risks diluting the brand’s association with luxury. In legal terms, this is known as “dilution by blurring,” where the distinctiveness of a famous trademark is weakened by oversaturation. The very fact that these Wirkin bags appeared in a mass-market retail setting, like Walmart, risks chipping away at the Birkin’s unattainable nature, decreasing its perceived value and prestige.

The rise of Birkin dupes, more so than other luxury counterfeit products, raises important questions about the intersection of culture, class, and intellectual property. While the Birkin has long been a status symbol, its presence in mass markets challenges the notions of exclusivity and class hierarchy that make it such a powerful cultural signifier. For Hermès, it’s not just about  fighting off infringers, but preserving its cultural capital. Whether through legal action or through other means, the luxury house faces the challenge of balancing its desire for exclusivity in a world increasingly primed for democratized access and eating the rich.