Luis Vuitton/Gucci/Prada accessories strictly are NOT commodities by definition.
"marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs" is a neccessary but not sufficient condition for being called a commodity.
Commodities is a subset of all goods / marketable items - those that have high fungibility and low differentiation. It's not a binary classification, but on "commodity <> not-commodity" scale Luis Vuitton/Gucci/Prada stuff is near the extreme not-commodity end.
Actually, the same wikipedia explains it quite well in the sentences after that first line.
"The exact definition of the term commodity is specifically used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market."
You're using the wrong definition (and truncating it to boot) for "commodity" here. The key element is the "undifferentiated" element, and, while there's room to debate the true level of differentiation of mass-manufactured products to which a brand label is applied, the point is that what sets Luis Vuitton, Gucci, Prada, etc., apart in the marketplace is in fact a perceived differentiation in quality from products not- or differently-branded.
I thought you got unfairly slammed for your Apple comments, but you're really pursuing a barren ground here.
From wiki: >In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Economic commodities comprise goods and services.
Are you suggesting that Apple products are not marketable items, thereby being goods? Or that their cloud products are not services?
Are you suggesting that a Luis Vuitton handbag is not a marketable item produced to satisfy consumer wants?