Glow Recipe is taking on MCoBeauty, accusing the Australian beauty brand of trade dress infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition in a new lawsuit in connection with its “Hydrate & Glow Ultra-Dew Serum,” a product that Aramara Beauty d/b/a Glow Recipe claims is a deliberate copy of its bestselling Watermelon Glow Niacinamide Dew Drops. The case, which Glow Recipe lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 6, is the latest in a growing series of legal actions brought by established beauty brands against what they characterize as opportunistic “dupe” companies attempting to ride the coattails of viral, high-end hits.
In the newly-filed complaint, as first reported by TFL, Glow Recipe, which is known for its fruit-infused skincare formulas, alleges that MCoBeauty designed, packaged, marketed, and sold a product that is “confusingly similar” to its Dew Drops – right down to the product’s pink color scheme, spherical bottle shape, rectangular labeling, and the overall visual presentation. The problem, according to Glow Recipe, is that MCoBeauty has not only co-opted the look of the bottle, itself, but also employs nearly-identical language and marketing tactics that are likely to confuse consumers.
Glow Recipe describes its Dew Drops, which were first released in December 2020, as a flagship product in its award-winning skincare line. It claims that the trade dress of the Dew Drops – which includes a pink-hued spherical bottle with a narrow neck, an oversized cap, and a white rectangular label – is “inherently distinctive,” “non-functional,” and instantly recognizable as coming from Glow Recipe. Since its launch, the product has earned numerous accolades, including Allure’s 2024 Readers’ Choice Award, per Glow Recipe, and has generated millions in sales.
What Glow Recipe argues is particularly problematic is how MCoBeauty – a beauty brand known for offering “affordable alternatives” to luxury cosmetics – markets the Hydrate & Glow Ultra-Dew Serum. “Defendants do not appear to be ashamed of their infringement or fraudulent business practices, completely complicit in the alleged conduct herein,” Glow Recipe argues. “For example, on Defendants’ Instagram, Defendants state: ‘It’s not a dupe. It’s a dupé!’ Dupes are colloquially known as getting a cheap imitation of a product but tricking or ‘duping’ other consumers and the public into thinking they are getting the real thing.”
Glow Recipe maintains that this language is a tacit admission by MCoBeauty that the product is intended to mimic, and profit off, its Dew Drops, and MCoBeauty’s conduct is a “classic example of post-sale confusion,” where consumers, seeing the similar packaging after the initial sale of the product, may mistakenly believe the product is made by or affiliated with Glow Recipe.
Further blurring the lines between the two products, Glow Recipe points to MCoBeauty’s content strategy on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, including posts that compared Glow Recipe’s Dew Drops to its Hue Drops, which used the phrase “Dew Drops vs. Hue Drops.” Glow Recipe claims this is part of a larger pattern of copying by MCoBeauty that is designed to mislead consumers and leverage Glow Recipe’s market presence.
With the foregoing in mind, Glow Recipe sets out claims of trade dress infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition, and is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages, asking the court to prohibit MCoBeauty from continuing to sell or market the allegedly infringing products, as well as to order the destruction of all infringing goods. The company is also requesting an accounting of MCoBeauty’s profits and treble damages for what it alleges is willful and deliberate infringement. Glow Recipe argues that MCoBeauty’s activities have caused reputational and monetary harm, and that unless the court intervenes, the infringement will continue.
The company also states that MCoBeauty may have copied additional Glow Recipe products, reserving the right to amend the complaint as more information becomes available through discovery.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The lawsuit is the latest reminder of the legal risks dupe-driven brands face as they scale in markets dominated by social media, influencer recommendations, and rapid trend cycles. While affordable alternatives have long existed in beauty, Glow Recipe’s case – and a growing string of similar suits – signal that brands are increasingly prepared to litigate when they believe the boundary between inspiration and infringement has been crossed.
The case is Aramara Beauty v. MCO Beauty PTY Limited, 1:25-cv-04808 (SDNY).
Share
