The rise of dupe culture has forced courts to confront a pressing question: where does legal imitation end and unauthorized copying begin? As brands like Lululemon, Sol de Janeiro, and Smucker’s sue retailers and competitors over design similarities, the legal boundaries of trade dress protection are being tested in industries where trends shift rapidly and imitation is the norm.
Dupes vs. Counterfeits: A Legal Gray Area
Counterfeit goods are clear-cut under trademark law - falsely claiming authenticity through logos, brand names, or packaging. Dupes, however, operate in a gray zone. They mimic design elements, packaging, or even color schemes without using protected trademarks, blurring the line between inspiration and infringement. While selling counterfeit products is illegal, the legality of dupe sales remains unresolved in U.S. courts.
The distinction hinges on consumer perception. If a product is clearly inspired by another but not identical, it may avoid liability. Yet, when the imitator’s design is so close it risks confusing buyers, courts may side with the original brand. This ambiguity has led to lawsuits that rely on trade dress and dilution claims under the Lanham Act, which prohibits branding that misleads consumers or dilutes the distinctiveness of famous marks.
Why Dupe Culture Is Accelerating
Dupes are not new, but their visibility has exploded. Social media has transformed them from hidden knockoffs into celebrated trends. Influencers openly compare budget-friendly alternatives to luxury items, shortening trend lifespans and fueling demand. Fast-fashion retailers like Shein and Temu replicate popular designs within weeks, while viral recommendations drive urgency.
Economic pressures also play a role. With rising inflation, consumers increasingly seek affordable options. Dupes offer access to high-end products without the premium price tag. Yet, this shift has broader implications. The overproduction of low-cost replicas reinforces disposable consumption habits, while many dupe supply chains rely on low-wage labor and minimal oversight.
Key Cases Shaping the Legal Landscape
Lululemon v. Costco (2025)
Lululemon alleges that Costco’s Kirkland-branded apparel unlawfully copies signature elements of its athletic wear, including design patents and trademarks. The case could set a precedent for how courts evaluate private-label products that closely resemble premium brands.
Sol de Janeiro v. MCoBeauty (2025)
In the beauty industry, Sol de Janeiro claims its packaging, color schemes, and marketing language are being copied by an Australian brand. The case highlights how visual branding in fragrances and skincare is increasingly scrutinized as a source identifier.
Smucker’s v. Trader Joe’s (2025)
Smucker’s sues Trader Joe’s over the packaging of crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, arguing the design infringes its trade dress. The dispute underscores how dupe disputes are now extending beyond fashion and beauty into everyday consumer goods.
Challenges in Enforcement
Trademark enforcement faces unique hurdles in a fast-moving market. Fast-fashion companies replicate designs before brands can respond, often selling through global platforms that complicate jurisdiction. Even successful lawsuits may fail to stop imitation, as products reappear under new listings. Brands face costly, prolonged litigation while racing to keep up with viral trends and rapid production cycles.
This is where IP Defender steps in, offering real-time monitoring of national trademark databases to identify conflicts before they escalate into legal battles. By tracking 50+ countries, including the EU, USA, and Australia, IP Defender helps brands stay ahead of infringers and protect their intellectual property without relying on reactive litigation.
How Brands Are Adapting
Some companies are shifting from litigation to proactive strategies. Brands are emphasizing transparency in sourcing, investing in innovative materials, and leveraging celebrity collaborations to reinforce authenticity. Affordable capsule collections and retail partnerships are also gaining traction as ways to compete without relying solely on exclusivity.
Ultimately, the legal system will play a critical role in defining how much of a brand’s identity can be copied. Whether trademark law evolves to address these challenges remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: as imitation becomes normalized, the balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering competition will shape the future of consumer goods.