- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Consumer Industries and Law Firm industries
"Dupes" are no longer just a social media trend or a consumer wink-wink. They are now a serious brand-protection issue sitting at the intersection of trademark law, design rights, and digital marketing. The key legal question is not whether products look alike, but whether that similarity actually causes consumer confusion. In today's dupe-driven market, brand protection requires a layered strategy that blends legal enforcement, marketing discipline, and real-time monitoring.
The Rise of "Dupe" Culture
Dupes are look-alike products that mimic design and overall aesthetic while deliberately avoiding brand names and logos. They are especially prevalent in the fashion, beauty, and lifestyle categories, and their rise has been largely driven by social media. Consumers often view dupes as savvy budget alternatives rather than knockoffs, which places them in a different legal category from counterfeits. As a result, dupes occupy a gray area under trademark law. A product can look strikingly similar to a branded good and still fall outside traditional infringement if it does not mislead consumers as to source or sponsorship.
Why Brands Are Concerned
From a brand-owner perspective, the rise of dupes raises several concerns. Repeated exposure to look-alike products can dilute a brand's visual distinctiveness, making it harder for consumers to associate certain design elements with a single source. Even where confusion is not obvious, similarity can lead to misattributed quality, lost sales, or reputational harm if consumers assume an affiliation that does not exist. These risks are amplified by viral hashtags and influencer content that openly frame products as "dupes." At the same time, differentiating between lawful competition, dupes, and counterfeits remains legally complex, requiring careful analysis to select the most effective enforcement route.
Case Study: Lululemon v. Costco
One of the most talked-about dupe disputes of 2025 is Lululemon's federal lawsuit against Costco, filed last June. Lululemon alleges that Costco's private-label apparel products, particularly hoodies, jackets, and pants, are too close to its own designs, including the Scuba hoodie, Define jacket, and ABC men's pant. Importantly, the complaint does not focus solely on logos. Instead, Lululemon asserts trademark and trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, design patent infringement, and unfair competition claims under both federal and California law.
Lululemon's theory is that these products share distinctive visual characteristics that consumers associate specifically with the Lululemon brand, and that Costco's versions are similar enough to cause consumers to mistakenly assume a connection or affiliation. The company is seeking damages as well as injunctive relief to stop Costco from selling the allegedly infringing items. What makes this case particularly significant from a brand-protection standpoint is the breadth of the legal strategy. This is not a traditional counterfeit case, but a multi-pronged effort to protect product design and overall look-and-feel. As of now, the case remains pending and is in its early stages, with discovery ongoing and no final judgment.
Case Study: e.l.f. Cosmetics v. Benefit
A different result emerged in the dispute between Benefit Cosmetics and e.l.f. Cosmetics involving mascara products. Benefit challenged e.l.f.'s Lash 'N Roll mascara, which was openly marketed online as a dupe of Benefit's Roller Lash. Benefit argued that e.l.f. copied the product name, the curved applicator wand concept, and overall look of the product (including color combination and placement), and that these similarities amounted to trademark and trade dress infringement.
The court, however, was not persuaded. The analysis centered on whether consumers were likely to be confused about who made the product, and the court found no such likelihood. The packaging clearly and prominently displayed e.l.f. branding, the price difference was substantial (approximately $29 versus $6) and consumers were deemed sophisticated enough to understand they were purchasing a cheaper alternative rather than the Benefit mascara. The court emphasized that similarity alone is not infringement. Trademark law does not prohibit competition, even close competition, unless it actually misleads consumers as to source. The key takeaway is that advertising a product as a "dupe," by itself, is not illegal.
Case Study: Trader Joe's
Trader Joe's offers a third and particularly instructive example of how dupes operate in practice. Trader Joe's is well known for selling affordable beauty and personal care products that resemble higher-end brands in look, feel, and performance, often at a fraction of the price. Comparisons frequently made online include products similar to those from Summer Fridays, OUAI, and Farmacy.
What is notable is that Trader Joe's does not typically market these products as dupes itself. Instead, much of the dupe narrative comes from influencers and consumers on social media who openly compare Trader Joe's offerings to premium alternatives. By allowing third parties, rather than the brand, to frame these comparisons, Trader Joe's appears to benefit from the buzz while minimizing direct legal exposure.
The Case Studies listed above are based on publicly available information, not based on legal representation of the parties involved
Brand Protection Strategies in the Dupe Era
For brands navigating the dupe landscape, a layered enforcement strategy is key. Strong foundations remain critical, including early trademark registration and, where possible, trade dress protection once consumers begin associating a particular look with the brand. For certain products, design patents can provide valuable protection for specific ornamental features. Equally important is active monitoring of social media, hashtags, and influencer content, because many dupe narratives originate and spread online.
Finally, there is a softer but equally important component: consumer education. Brands that consistently explain why their product is different, whether in terms of quality, safety, innovation, or performance, are better positioned when consumers weigh the purchase of an original against a cheaper alternative.
The Bottom Line
Dupes are not going away. In the current marketplace, the most effective response is not purely legal and not purely marketing driven. The winning strategy is legal plus marketing plus monitoring. Brands that integrate all three are far better equipped to protect their identity, reputation, and long-term value in the dupe era.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
