The market for dupes is rapidly expanding, with no signs of slowing down. TikTok is saturated with creators promoting “unbelievable” alternatives to luxury staples – from handbags to makeup to shoes. Fast fashion and beauty brands are refining the formula, releasing lookalike products with striking speed and precision – and in some cases, raising significant capital to scale businesses around the “luxury for less” model. Consumers are increasingly drawn to dupes not just for affordability, but for access – viewing them as clever alternatives rather than inferior knockoffs.
For brands, the dupe boom presents growing legal and business risks. As the aesthetic gap between luxury and mass-market continues to narrow – and as consumers become increasingly skeptical of the value proposition of luxury brands, the question becomes: how can companies protect their products in a market increasingly comfortable with imitation?
A Shifting Legal Landscape
An increasing number of dupe-related lawsuits are actively creating a legal roadmap for brand protection in the copycat economy. From trademarks and design patents to trade dress and false advertising, these cases are refining how companies enforce their rights. They are also exposing the limitations of traditional tools – especially in industries where once-distinctive designs have become commonplace.
The result is a more nuanced, multi-pronged legal playbook that reflects the realities of modern brand enforcement.
Trademarks: A First Line of Defense
In the dupe economy, imitation often begins with language. Increasingly, brands are asserting trademark infringement claims based on names and phrases that echo well-known products. These word marks can serve as a strong first line of defense – targeting sellers that rely on suggestive or phonetically similar naming to create brand adjacency.
In the case that Pacific Market International is waging against Five Below, for instance, the maker of Stanley drinkware argues that names like “Hydraquench” and “Hyperquench” infringe on its federally registered QUENCHER mark. PMI contends that these names were deliberately chosen by Five Below to trade on consumer recognition of its offering and cause confusion. The case underscores how word marks remain a powerful tool, especially when dupes sidestep logos but still lean heavily on brand familiarity.
Trade Dress: The Battle Over Appearance
Many brands are also turning to trade dress claims to protect the overall look and feel of their products, particularly given the fact that dupes rarely co-opt overt branding. In Coach v. Quince, for example, Coach alleges that Quince’s handbags replicate key design features of its Rogue and Soho Flap bags (such as hardware placement, stitching, and silhouette), arguing that these non-functional elements serve as source identifiers.
Yet, trade dress claims do not make for a sure-fire enforcement strategy. In its own case against Quince, UGG-owner Deckers alleged that the company infringed the appearance of its popular boot styles. The court disagreed, finding features like low ankle height and exposed sheepskin to be too generic and widely adopted to qualify for protection. The ruling highlights a key limitation: to prevail, brands must show that their designs are non-functional and source-identifying – an increasingly difficult task as once-distinctive aesthetics become the targets of widespread imitation.
>> An added complication for trademark/trade dress infringement-asserting parties is the likelihood of consumer confusion. As seen in adidas v. Thom Browne, courts consider price and market segmentation when assessing infringement. When brands occupy different price tiers – like ALAÏA and Steve Madden – courts may find no actionable confusion. This presents a challenge for upscale brands seeking to hold low-cost dupe makers liable.
Design Patents: Protecting What You Can See
Design patents can be a critical tool in the dupe enforcement toolkit. In its suit against Costco, Lululemon alleges that the retailer copied the protected designs of its SCUBA hoodies and other bestselling products. Unlike trade dress, design patents offer clearly defined protection without requiring proof of distinctiveness or consumer association, and they can be enforced even when logos are omitted.
Lululemon’s case shows how brands are combining design patents with broader brand strategies, with the athleisure giant alleging that Costco’s product line copies protected designs and mimics recognizable colorways, reinforcing a broader effort to trade on Lululemon’s visual identity. In a landscape where aesthetics drive purchasing behavior, design patents offer brands a concrete way to protect their investments.
Copyright: Defending Creative Expression
Copyright is also emerging as a tool in dupes disputes, especially in industries built on creative product design. In Dreams USA v. Five Below, the company behind the cult-favorite Sonny Angel dolls accuses the retailer of selling unauthorized “dupes” that are nearly identical in shape, style, and expression. The complaint points to figurines with similar facial features, proportions, and character themes, with Dreams arguing that Five Below’s products are substantially similar to its registered Sonny Angel Toy copyright.
Although copyright may not be an option for utilitarian goods, it offers robust protection for expressive elements where trade dress and design patents may fall short. For companies investing in character design, sculptural packaging, or collectible items, copyright provides a direct avenue to enforce creative rights and preserve brand identity.
False Advertising: The Emerging Legal Front
As dupe marketing becomes more sophisticated, so too does the legal response. Increasingly, brands are turning to false advertising claims under the Lanham Act – either instead of or in addition to traditional IP claims. Here, the question is not whether a product looks similar enough to confuse, but whether sellers are making deceptive claims about equivalence, quality, or performance.
This shift is already playing out in the courtroom. Sol de Janeiro’s lawsuit against MCoBeauty does not just attack its fragrance dupe packaging, but also targets influencer marketing claims that the product “smells exactly like” its scents and “lasts all day,” despite alleged differences in formulation and performance.
Similarly, Williams-Sonoma’s suit against Quince targets “Beyond Compare” charts and marketing language suggesting that Quince’s products are materially identical to those from Pottery Barn or West Elm. These claims go beyond aesthetics, striking at the credibility of dupe marketing itself.
False advertising claims offer brands several advantages. They bypass the need to prove distinctiveness or functionality and instead focus on whether statements are factually misleading and materially influence consumer decisions. In an era where influencer content and viral comparisons fuel dupe popularity, this approach enables brands to challenge the messaging – not just the product.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The rise of the dupe economy presents more than just a design challenge; it is increasingly a business and legal challenge, as well. As courts continue to clarify the boundaries of what is protectable, the most effective brand enforcement strategies are moving beyond single-claim approaches. Today’s legal playbook consists of a layered approach that combines trademark, trade dress, design patent, copyright, and false advertising claims to address the varied tactics used by dupe sellers.
Share
