She is Beauty, She is Grace, She is Fake? Estée Lauder Alleges Walmart is Selling Counterfeit Versions of Beauty Products on Its Website

[1]

Estée Lauder, Inc. and its subsidiaries are suing Walmart, Inc. over products sold on its e-commerce platform and in stores that infringe on trademarks for its brands Estée Lauder, Le Labo, La Mer, Clinique, Aveda, and Tom Ford, collectively referred to as “the ELC Trademarks” in the complaint, and the trade dress for the product design of its Tom Ford Private Blend Collection.^[2] Trade dress is trademark protection that extends to cover either product design or product packaging.[3] Trade dress covering product design requires there to be acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, meaning consumers associate the product with the source.[4] Secondary meaning is established through marketing, sales, and long-term use of the product.[5] On the other hand, trade dress covering product packaging can be inherently distinctive and does not need to show that it has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning.[6] Trade dress protects the nonfunctional design or overall appearance of a product, including elements such as shape, size, color, and texture, when those features are used to identify the product’s source rather than to serve a utilitarian function.[7]

The luxury beauty giant seeks damages and equitable relief on six claims of trademark infringement, six claims for false designation of origin and false descriptions, one claim of trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, one claim of common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and one claim of vicarious trademark infringement.^[8] More than a conventional trademark dispute, the case raises broader questions about how much responsibility an online marketplace can bear for allegedly infringing products sold in a retail environment that appears to consumers to be uniform and Walmart-controlled.[9]

The complaint sets out the trademark registrations at issue, and alleged that Walmart manufactures, markets, distributes, advertises, and sells skincare and fragrance products bearing marks identical or similar enough to confuse consumers as to the source of the product to one or more of the ELC Trademarks, as well as products that allegedly imitate the trade dress of the Tom Ford Private Blend Collection, through its website.^[10]

More specifically, Estée Lauder attached images of the “Accused Products” it says are sold on Walmart’s website and infringe on its trademark and trade dress rights, including its Estée Lauder Advanced Night Repair Serum Synchronized Multi-Recovery Complex, Le Labo fragrances, La Mer Moisturizing Cream, Clinique Smart Clinical Repair Wrinkle Correcting Eye Cream, Aveda Wooden Paddle Brush, and the Tom Ford Private Blend Collection.^[11] 

The Private Blend Collection’s trade dress consists of non-functional elements that are visually distinct and unique in the fragrance industry, which consumers and beauty retailers know originate from Tom Ford.^[12] As such, Estée Lauder claims that Walmart is producing deliberate “copycat versions” of the five fragrances of the Tom Ford Private Blend Collection, and in doing so, argues that its trade dress has acquired secondary meaning.^[13] That claim is especially significant because trade dress claims require more than proof of copied brand names; they also require a plaintiff to show that the overall appearance of a product or package is distinctive, non-functional, and associated in consumers’ minds with a single source.[14] They further argue that with countless other designs available on the market, none require copying the combination of features of its Collection, which provides no cost advantages to Walmart consumers and serves only to render their products association with the Collection, fragrances distinctively originating from Tom Ford.[15]

With the high degree of consumer recognition and secondary meaning that Estée Lauder attributes to Tom Ford’s packaging, Estée Lauder claims that Walmart's introduction of fragrances with confusingly similar trade dress to Tom Ford’s Blend Collection into the stream of commerce exploits Tom Ford’s reputation.^[16] Estée Lauder believes that there is no adequate remedy at law to fully compensate the brand for the harm Walmart has caused other than injunctive relief to prohibit Walmart from continuing to infringe upon the collection’s trade dress.^[17] In other words, the company’s theory is not simply that Walmart sold similar-looking fragrance bottles, but that it traded on the source identifying-value of Tom Ford’s luxury presentation itself.[18]

More broadly, Estée Lauder cites Walmart’s website and alleges that it knowingly permits and selects third-party vendors to sell counterfeit products that resemble the ELC Trademarks.^[19] The beauty company further contends that a shopper using Walmart’s website would reasonably believe Walmart either sold the products or that Walmart had a contractual relationship with third-party sellers of the allegedly infringing upon products, and that Walmart had authorization to sell them.^[20] That distinction matters because the lawsuit appears aimed not only at the existence of counterfeit goods on a marketplace, but at Walmart’s degree of control over the sales environment and the extent to which that environment may blur the link between Walmart as a platform host and Walmart as a seller.[21]

The beauty brand insists that Walmart is deliberately selling substantially indistinguishable or confusingly similar Estée Lauder products to confuse the public and consumers into believing that the beauty brand products are produced, authorized, or otherwise affiliated with Walmart, ultimately harming the company’s reputation.^[22] Estée Lauder now seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Walmart from using the ELC Trademarks at issue.^[23]

In 2025, CNBC conducted an investigation that revealed that Walmart’s lax vetting protocol for sellers and products was allegedly driven by competition with Amazon as digital consumption reaches new heights, posing a risk to consumers’ health and well-being.^[24] Their investigation was prompted when a mother of three ordered Lifeworks-ACS daily oral supplements from Walmart’s website and found misspellings on the packaging.^[25] CNBC confirmed that the supplements were counterfeited by a seller who took another business identity and found that shoppers seeking deals from name brands on Walmart’s website may come across at least 43 vendors doing the same.^[26] Former Walmart staff working on vetting sellers stated they were pressured to approve seller applications, even when they had concerns about the applicant’s credentials.^[27]

Ultimately, Estée Lauder’s claim will turn on an assessment of Walmart’s third-party marketplace model, the level of its control over checkout, payment processing, handling returns in-store and online, its provisions on fulfillment and customer service, and how these services contribute to its potential trademark liability.[28] However, the retail supergiant’s track record of authorizing the sale of counterfeits calls into question the broader implications of the risks consumers face when trying to purchase name brands at discounted costs, and the lengths major retailers are willing to go to make a sale.[29] At stake is not only whether Walmart sold infringing products, but also whether major online retailers can continue to profit from third-party marketplace sales while disclaiming responsibility for the confusion, reputational harm, and consumer risk those marketplaces may create.

References

[1] Photo by KDavid Montero, A Walmart Store with a Car Parked in Front of It, Unsplash (Feb. 20, 2024), https://unsplash.com/photos/a-walmart-store-with-a-car-parked-in-front-of-it-p-wArY8zQUA

^[2] See Complaint ¶ 57–63, Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01341 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026).

[3] See Anthony Cartee, Trade Dress – Does it Have to Have Secondary Meaning? Cartee, LC, https://www.ac-legal.com/trade-dress-secondary-meaning/#:~:text=Trade%20dress%20is%20protectable%20under%20the%20Lanham,association%20in%20the%20mind%20of%20the%20public (last visited Mar. 20, 2026).

[4] See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 209 (2000) (stating for unregistered trade dress, trade dress protection is only available if the product’s design is distinctive through secondary meaning).

[5] See Cartee, supra note 3.

[6] See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 776 (1992) (holding if trade dress is inherently distinctive, secondary meaning not required for successful trade dress infringement claim in context of product packaging).

[7] See Brett Heavner & Juan Pablo Silva Mir, A Guide to Trade Dress in the United States, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Jan. 28, 2025), https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/a-guide-to-trade-dress-in-the-united-states.html

^[8] See Complaint ¶57–63.

[9] See id. ¶ 11, 14–15, 66–67.

^[10] See id. ¶57–63.

^[11] See id. ¶73–96.

^[12] See id. at ¶46–48.

^[13] See id. at ¶ 96–99.

[14] See Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. at 776 (requiring trade dress to be distinctive); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 529 U.S. at 209 (noting product design needs secondary meaning to be distinctive).  

[15] See Complaint ¶ 48–56.

^[16] See id. ¶ 222.

^[17] See id. ¶ 227.

[18] See id. ¶ 114.

^[19] See id. ¶ 64; see also Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 853–54 (1982) (holding that operator of online marketplace with specific knowledge of infringing acts and allows that infringing activity to continue can be held contributory liable for trademark infringement).

^[20] See Complaint ¶¶ 13, 68–75.

[21] See id. 

^[22] See id. ¶ 68 (citing Vans v. Walmart, No. 8:21-cv-01876 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2023) (explaining how Estée Lauder relied on this case as support for argument, reasoning that reasonable consumer would believe that shoes sold on their website were sold by Walmart and not Vans)

^[23] See Complaint ¶ 236.

^[24] See Gabrielle Fonrouge & Paige Tortorelli, Walmart’s Marketplace Boom: How Lax Vetting Came with Identity Theft and Fakes, CNBC (Sep. 22, 2025, at 06:22 ET) https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/walmart-marketplace-fakes-scams-investigation.html.

^[25] See id.

^[26] See id.

^[27] See id.

[28] See Estée Lauder Brands Sue Walmart Over Alleged Sale of Counterfeit Goods, The Fashion L. (Feb. 10, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/estee-lauder-brands-sue-walmart-over-alleged-sale-of-counterfeit-goods/ 

[29] See Fonrouge & Tortorelli, supra note 24.