Fendi wins £213,000 against a dropshipping counterfeit operation
The IPEC awarded £213,000 in a damages inquiry against a counterfeit luxury goods seller, rejecting the figures put forward by both sides.
In Fendi Italia Srl and others v Rolo Fashion Limited and another [2026] EWHC 1703 (IPEC), handed down on 9 July 2026, His Honour Judge Hacon determined a damages inquiry on the papers and awarded £213,000 against a dropshipping operation selling counterfeit luxury goods.
The judge rejected the quantification advanced by both parties, and confirmed that the 'user principle' is available in trade mark cases even where the proprietor would never have licensed the mark – so damages are not limited to sales the brand can prove it lost.
Default judgment had been entered in January 2025 against the company and its director, who was additionally liable as a sole trader for the period before incorporation. An ex parte freezing injunction had been granted in September 2024, and disclosure was heavily contested throughout.
Counterfeit enforcement is expensive long before anyone reaches a damages inquiry: injunctions, disclosure fights and a separate quantum hearing all carry cost. Small and mid-sized brands rarely budget for that – pursuit cover does.
DEFENCE UP TO £5M · PURSUIT UP TO £1M IN YEAR ONE · PURSUIT ONLY WITH DEFENCE
SOURCE: Solicitors Journal
Summarised for general information only. Nothing here is legal advice or a statement of policy terms – cover is subject to underwriting and the policy wording.