The Gray Area: Where the Value of Design Meets Dupe Culture

If you open any given social media, say TikTok or Instagram, after only a couple of scrolls you’ll inevitably be met with a beauty guru or fashion influencer recommending or comparing ‘dupes’ – cheaper and more accessible products inspired by more expensive, luxurious ‘originals’ – and often, claiming them as superior to the competition. In the fashion and beauty industries, dupe culture has become widespread, as consumers actively seek out the look and feel of luxury for half the price. This phenomenon has led to a surge of products imitating the style or function of a more expensive predecessor, with entire companies pivoting towards creating dupes as their brand identities. And yet, these brands, be they of clothing apparel or cosmetic products, successfully navigate the gray area of intellectual property (IP) protection that concerns imitation, leading to a plethora of implications for the luxury sector, as well as creating new challenges for small-time designers and businesses.

Before we examine how dupe companies avoid IP protection, there must be a distinction between the terms ‘counterfeit’ and ‘dupe’, as while they are used interchangeably in everyday speech, they carry a different legal weight when it comes to IP law. A ‘counterfeit’ constitutes a replica of a product appropriating brand logos and trademarks to mislead consumers about a product’s identity and production, which is illegal. However, a ‘dupe’ merely imitates the style of a high-end product without infringing on the original’s identifying markers, like logos or labels. In this way, duping is legal to a large extent, given that a company takes the necessary precautions to go around trademark violations.

There are a few ways in which dupe companies navigate IP limitations, like copying generic elements of the original product, reverse-engineering or feeding off of publicly available information to avoid patent violations, and providing the unique value of giving consumers the feeling of luxury on a budget. It is also worth noting that dupe producers rely heavily on ‘trade dress’ – protection of the overall appearance of a product, including packaging, design elements, and even its color scheme – and playing with it just to the edge of legality. Identifying trade dress violations is extremely subjective, making it difficult for the original brands to prove infringement, even when a dupe is clearly imitating another product to evoke the same feeling and an association with the original. All in all, dupe brands operate in a very shadowy area of IP protection which leaves them just on the right side of legality.

However, even if consumers are satisfied with wearing ‘more for less’ and are aware of the fact that the products they purchase are an echo meant to evoke the feeling of luxury (and are even drawn to dupes precisely because of that), there is still a lot of damage that dupe culture brings on small designers and brands, but also on the luxury originals as well.  Fast fashion brands outright steal designs and sell them on a mass scale, sometimes even taking the original product images as a way to advertise, leaving independent designers grappling to protect their labor. The fast fashion model outpowers small businesses with its high production rates and low prices, making it impossible for designers to compete. It is another issue entirely to consider the ethical implications of fast fashion in terms of exploitative labor and the negative environmental impact of unsustainable clothing and cosmetic products. The luxury sector is also a victim of dupe culture, as counterfeiting significantly erodes a brand’s identity and even pushes potential customers away. Luxury embodies exclusivity, originality, and quality, and so dupes and counterfeits compromise that ideal by introducing lower-quality imitations that can be linked back to the original, thus harming its reputation and status. Furthermore, fast fashion and beauty brands frequently leverage dupe culture to quickly replicate trends, forcing established brands to accelerate innovation cycles to keep up their competitiveness, damaging the quality and craftsmanship that are supposed to go into designing and producing a product of that rank. In this way, customers begin to lose trust in high-end brands and what they promise.

In conclusion, while dupe culture offers consumers an affordable way to experience the look and feel of luxury, it operates in a legally ambiguous space that raises significant ethical and economic concerns. By carefully navigating intellectual property laws, dupe brands thrive on imitation without direct infringement, creating challenges for both luxury houses and independent designers. Fast fashion’s rapid production cycles and low costs make it difficult for original creators to compete, while also contributing to issues of labor exploitation and environmental harm. As dupe culture continues to grow, it forces the fashion and beauty industries to adapt, often at the expense of quality, exclusivity, and innovation.

References and Further Reading

“From Drunk Elephant Substitutes to ray-ban knockoffs, is that “dupe” legal?” (Northeastern Global News)

“The Difference Between Dupes and Counterfeits: What Consumers and IP Rights Owners Need to Know” (Kilburn & Strode)