Dupes have become a fixture in the modern consumer marketplace – championed by heavily-followed influencers, embraced by a growing number of brands, and increasingly sought out by price-conscious shoppers. But what began as a cultural trend rooted in accessibility is now facing growing legal scrutiny. Major fashion, footwear, and beauty brands are pushing back, arguing that the line between inspiration and imitation is being crossed – and they are turning to the courts to hold alleged copycats accountable.
In a growing string of cases, well-known brands including Sol de Janeiro, Coach, and UGG’s parent company, Deckers, are taking on companies they accuse of riding the coattails of their success. Their targets? Up-and-comers like Quince and MCoBeauty, which market themselves as offering affordable luxury by replicating the look and feel of premium goods – albeit for less – along with established industry entities like Costco.
The allegations in these lawsuits are relatively similar: the defendants are accused of creating copycat versions of popular products that mimic not just general aesthetics, but specific, legally protected design elements. In each case, the plaintiffs argue that these design choices are non-functional, distinctive, and immediately associated with their brand by consumers.
A Growing Number of Dupes Suits
Among the steadily growing number of dupes-centric lawsuits is a case waged by Sol de Janeiro, which 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, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in November 2024, 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.
In a suit of its own, Coach claims that some of its signature offerings have been hijacked. In a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in April, Coach and its owner, Tapestry, accuse Quince of copying the source-indicating look of its Rogue and Soho Flap bags – including their distinctive buckles, stitching, and silhouettes – thereby engaging in trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin.
Not the only case being waged against Quince: Deckers filed suit against the quickly growing company back in 2023, alleging that Quince made and sold shearling boots that imitate the trademark- and patent-protected design of the wildly popular UGG® Classic Ultra Mini. According to Deckers, Quince intentionally designed the allegedly infringing boot style – which it sold for $69.90 – to confuse consumers and leverage UGG’s established goodwill. In fact, Deckers claims in the still-ongoing matter that Quince went so far as to include a “comparison of [its boots] and the UGG Classic Ultra Mini on [its] website listing for the accused product … knowing the objectively high likelihood that such actions constituted infringement.”
In both Quince cases, the plaintiffs allege that the “copycats” are so similar to the originals that they are likely to cause consumer confusion.
Most recently, Deckers filed suit against Costco on May 8 in a California federal court, accusing the retail giant of engaging in trade dress and patent infringement by way of its Kirkland Signature® Unisex Shearling Slipper, which “unlawfully copies” the distinctive design of its UGG Tasman slipper. Deckers asserts that Costco’s actions were deliberate and that it intended to mislead consumers, exploit UGG’s reputation, and profit from Deckers’ established goodwill by way of the dupe footwear.
The Bigger Picture
These lawsuits (and others like them) reflect an emerging legal reckoning with the widespread embrace of “dupe culture” in the fashion and beauty industries. While companies like Quince and MCoBeauty position themselves as champions of accessible luxury, offering consumers legally above-board alternatives at lower prices, established brands argue that these business models amount to little more than commercial free-riding. In their view, what is being marketed as affordability is, in reality, a systematic appropriation of years of creative development, brand equity, and consumer goodwill by entities with little to no investment in the original innovation.
Against this background, the cultural phenomenon that is dupes now carries substantial legal implications. Under U.S. law, trade dress – or the visual appearance of a product that signifies its source – is entitled to protection when it has acquired distinctiveness and is non-functional. As courts weigh these cases, they may offer important guidance on how far a company can go in emulating the appearance of a well-known product before crossing into unlawful imitation. The outcome in such suits could impact whether the current era of lookalikes and smell-alikes remains a tolerated quirk of the marketplace or becomes subject to more rigorous legal boundaries.
For brands, the message is increasingly unambiguous: what once passed as savvy marketing may no longer enjoy legal impunity. As litigation mounts, companies selling near-identical alternatives may find that the real cost of imitation lies not in manufacturing – but in defending against claims of infringement.
Share
