Dupes are slated to continue to capture a meaningful share of consumer spending, as shoppers seek out affordable versions of expensive cosmetics, apparel, footwear, handbags, jewelry, furniture, and other goods. Now a household term, “dupes” – short for “duplicates” – refers to products that closely resemble high(er)-end items in appearance, performance, and/or scent but are available at a lower price point. These types of goods have gained massive popularity, thanks, in part to the plethora of influencers on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube that have gained sizable followings by showcasing lookalikes alongside their pricey originals.
As the growing pool of consumers that want luxury-like experiences without the premium price tags drive demand for dupes, the stakes for relevant players are rising. At the same time, as dupes flourish, companies on both sides of the equation – those whose products are being “duped” and those in the business of offering up these appealing products – are facing questions on the legal and business strategy fronts.
Despite the attention they receive, dupes occupy a more nuanced legal position than many consumers appreciate. There is no standalone legal prohibition on selling a product that resembles another. In fact, intellectual property law generally permits competitors to draw inspiration from existing products, provided they do not copy protectable elements or otherwise mislead consumers about the source of their goods.
That distinction is significant because the term “dupe” has no legal meaning. Instead, whether a particular product gives rise to liability depends on the specific rights at issue and the manner in which the product is designed, marketed, and sold. Depending on the circumstances, a lookalike product may implicate trademark, trade dress, design patent, copyright, false advertising, or unfair competition laws. Conversely, many products that are widely characterized as dupes may fall squarely within the bounds of lawful competition.
As a result, the legal analysis is rarely about whether a product is a “dupe.” Rather, it turns on more specific questions: What aspects of the original product are being copied? Are those features legally protectable? And is the alleged copying likely to confuse consumers or otherwise infringe a valid intellectual property right?
The answers to those questions increasingly are being tested in courts as brands look to protect not only their names and logos, but also the overall appearance, packaging, product configurations, and other distinctive features that help distinguish their goods in an increasingly crowded marketplace.
Share
