A battle over beauty branding dupes is heating up in a New York federal court, where MCoBeauty Pty Ltd is pushing back against a lawsuit waged against it by Sol de Janeiro. In response to Sol de Janeiro’s trademark infringement and false advertising claims, MCoBeauty does not merely deny wrongdoing, it aims to dismantle the foundation of the Sol de Janeiro dupes-centric case, asserting that what is at issue is not infringement at all and instead, an effort by Sol de Janeiro to assert rights over design elements that are either functional, generic, or widely used in the beauty space.
The Background in Brief: Among the steadily growing number of lawsuits targeting dupes is the case that Sol de Janeiro filed in November 2024, in which it alleges that MCoBeauty copied the distinctive packaging and fragrance concepts of its best-selling Cheirosa body mists – right down to the color-coded bottles and stylized fonts – and then went further, promoting them with marketing language like “smells exactly like” the original Sol de Janeiro scents.
In the complaint that it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sol de Janeiro argues that MCoBeauty’s statements are false, its fragrances are inferior, and the company is misleading consumers while profiting off Sol de Janeiro’s reputation.
An Array of Affirmative Defenses
In response, MCoBeauty Pty Ltd has pushed back forcefully by way of a series of affirmative defenses. At a high level, the Australian cosmetics brand argues that Sol de Janeiro is attempting to claim exclusive rights over commonplace and functional elements of beauty product packaging and marketing – elements that are not protectable under U.S. trademark or advertising law.
In particular, MCoBeauty makes a handful of interesting arguments that go to the heart of whether Sol de Janeiro’s trade dress and marketing claims are enforceable at all …
> The Trade Dress Is Not Protectable: The bulk of MCoBeauty’s response hinges on its claim that Sol de Janeiro’s claimed trade dress is not subject to trademark protection under U.S. law, arguing that the packaging elements Sol de Janeiro seeks to protect – like bottle shape, colors, and typeface – are not indicators of source, but rather generic aesthetic choices common to the beauty industry.
Beyond that, MCoBeauty maintains that the key elements of Sol De Janeiro’s Cheirosa packaging are primarily decorative or functional in nature, which disqualifies them from protection, and that the trade dress is generic and non-distinctive – far from the kind of branding that signals a single source to consumers.
> No Infringement, No Confusion: MCoBeauty denies that it copied or encroached on Sol de Janeiro’s branding in any legally actionable way.The company argues that its own fragrance line – marketed as Fragrance No. 1 through No. 4 – is clearly distinguishable, and not a copycat. Any similarities, it claims, stem from common industry trends, not from deliberate imitation.
And absent a showing that consumers are likely to be confused about the source of the products, MCoBeauty insists the trade dress claims cannot stand. The company frames Sol de Janeiro’s arguments as speculative at best, and insufficient to establish actionable confusion in the marketplace.
> Lawful and Non-Deceptive Advertising: Also, worth noting is MCoBeauty’s defense to Sol de Janeiro’s false advertising claim. Primarily, the brand invokes fair use to defend its comparisons, and frames statements like “smells exactly like” as puffery. At the same time, MCoBeauty also argues that its advertising is accurate, and not likely to mislead reasonable consumers. Even if Sol de Janeiro disagrees with how its scents are being compared, disagreement alone does not constitute deception under the law, per MCoBeauty.
The Bigger Picture
Beyond the packaging and advertising specifics at play, the case is more broadly about who gets to control the aesthetics of modern beauty branding – and how far trade dress protections can go. MCoBeauty’s defense appears to take the position (albeit not explicitly) that Sol de Janeiro is attempting to monopolize the look and feel of a type of product design and marketing language that is widely used in the beauty segment and inherently competitive.
As more fragrance and cosmetics companies lean into dupe marketing strategies, and as market leaders move to defend their visual and olfactory identities, this case may prove to be a test of how U.S. courts treat “lookalike” claims in the age of hyper-brand-conscious consumers.
The case is Sol De Janeiro, Inc. v. MCoBeauty Pty Ltd, 1:24-cv-08862 (SDNY).
Share
