Victoria’s Secret has taken the Danish retail chain Normal to court in Denmark, accusing the fast-growing discount retailer of selling counterfeit perfumes and illegally parallel-imported products across Europe. The case, which begins at the Maritime and Commercial High Court (Sø- og Handelsretten), centres on whether Normal can continue selling 13 Victoria’s Secret fragrance variants while the wider trademark dispute is examined.
A Danish retail success story faces a trademark test
Normal is one of Denmark’s most visible retail success stories of the past decade. Founded in 2012 and launched with its first store in Silkeborg in 2013, the chain has built its model around selling well-known personal care, beauty, household and non-food products at prices below many traditional retailers.
That model has helped Normal expand far beyond Denmark. The company now operates more than 975 stores across several European markets, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal. In its latest financial year, Normal reported revenue of more than 15 billion Danish kroner (around €2 billion) and operating profit above 1 billion Danish kroner (around €134 million).
The dispute with Victoria’s Secret therefore goes beyond a single product category. It touches on a central question for European retail: how far discount chains can rely on alternative supply channels while still guaranteeing that branded products are genuine, traceable and legally placed on the EU market.
Victoria’s Secret alleges counterfeit fragrances and illegal parallel imports
According to court documents obtained by DR, Victoria’s Secret is seeking a temporary injunction that would prevent Normal from marketing, storing, offering, selling or exporting several fragrance variants in the EU. The USA-based company argues that some products sold in Normal stores were not original Victoria’s Secret perfumes, while others were allegedly imported into Europe without the required consent.
The case concerns fragrance products including variants such as Pear Glacé, Pure Seduction and Amber Romance. Victoria’s Secret claims that test purchases carried out in Danish stores in Copenhagen and Aarhus in September and December last year confirmed its concerns. The company says its representatives began investigating after receiving information from its European sales network about suspected illegal parallel imports in countries including France and Portugal.
In the legal filing, Victoria’s Secret argues that the alleged use of its trademark on counterfeit products damages the brand and may create consumer safety risks. The company says it needs a temporary ban to prevent what it describes as irreparable harm while the main case on trademark infringement is still pending.
Normal rejects the allegations and defends parallel import
Normal denies that it has sold counterfeit goods and argues that Victoria’s Secret has not proved or even made probable that its trademark rights were infringed. The Danish chain maintains that the products at issue are covered by lawful parallel import, a common practice in European retail.
Parallel import refers to the sale of genuine branded products through channels outside the brand owner’s official distribution network. Within the EU and the European Economic Area, this can be legal when goods have already been placed on the market there by the trademark owner or with its consent. It is different from counterfeiting, which concerns goods falsely presented as genuine.
Normal also challenges the evidence presented by Victoria’s Secret. The company argues that declarations prepared by Victoria’s Secret and its producers should be treated as party submissions rather than independent proof. It also says that differences in packaging do not by themselves establish that a product is fake, noting that variations can also appear among products sold through Victoria’s Secret’s own channels.
Evidence seized at Normal’s headquarters remains disputed
The case has already involved a separate evidence-securing procedure. In December, the enforcement court in Horsens authorised the collection of evidence from Normal’s headquarters in Skanderborg and its central warehouse in Hedensted. A court officer collected both IT material and products.
However, Victoria’s Secret has not yet gained access to that material because Normal appealed the decision to the High Court. As a result, the temporary injunction case is currently based mainly on documentation submitted by Victoria’s Secret itself, including its assessment of products bought in Normal stores.
That makes the immediate legal question narrower than the broader dispute. The court must decide whether the conditions for a temporary sales ban are met before the main proceedings establish whether Victoria’s Secret’s EU trademark rights were actually infringed.
Why the case matters for discount retail in Europe
The lawsuit comes at a time when European consumers are highly sensitive to prices and discount retail chains are expanding rapidly across borders. For companies like Normal, access to alternative supply channels can be part of the business model. For global brands, those channels can create concerns over traceability, market control, product integrity and consumer trust.
Under EU trademark principles, the distinction between genuine parallel imports and counterfeit products is crucial. Regional exhaustion normally allows resale within the EU once goods have been put on the EU market by the trademark owner or with consent. But goods first placed on the market outside the EU may still be blocked by the trademark holder, and counterfeit goods are not protected by parallel import rules.
The case also has a consumer safety dimension. EU bodies have repeatedly warned that counterfeit cosmetics and personal care products can pose health risks because they may not be subject to the same production standards, testing and quality controls as genuine goods.
For Normal, a temporary ban could affect part of its beauty assortment and raise wider questions about procurement in a business built on low prices and fast international growth. For Victoria’s Secret, the case is a test of brand protection in a market where discount chains and grey-market supply routes increasingly shape how consumers access global beauty products.
A final ruling on trademark infringement will come only later. The immediate decision will determine whether Normal can continue selling the disputed Victoria’s Secret fragrances while the broader legal battle proceeds.
