Dupe culture used to describe a relatively simple transaction: a consumer wanted the look or function of an expensive product without paying the brand-name price. The alternative might resemble the original, but it was usually marketed as a substitute rather than an experience of its own.
That distinction has become much harder to make. Today’s dupe businesses are often copying more than a product. They recreate the shape, packaging, color palette and visual presentation that made the original desirable, then use familiar influencer language to tell consumers exactly what they have done. The name may be different, but the product is presented within a carefully reconstructed version of the original brand’s world.
A recent Vox report on the growth of dupe culture connected the trend to the dispute between Deckers, the company behind UGG, and Quince over lower-priced shearling boots. It also examined the role of TikTok, Amazon, reverse image search and dupe-finding tools in making the search for cheaper alternatives an ordinary part of shopping.
The legal issue is more complicated than whether one product looks like another. Dupe culture has developed a commercial language and distribution system built around imitation, while intellectual property law still requires us to identify which specific rights have been infringed. The law can evaluate a protected name, design or package, but a brand’s commercial identity often lives in the combination of many details, some of which may not be protectable on their own.
That gap is where our firm expects some of the next major brand fights to occur.
A recognizable product is not always a protectable product
The Deckers dispute shows how difficult it can be to protect a successful product once its appearance begins defining an entire category.
Deckers sued Quince in 2023, alleging that Quince’s shearling boots infringed the trade dress and design patent associated with UGG’s Classic Ultra Mini. In October 2025, the court held that the asserted product designs for the Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman were generic and therefore not protectable as trade dress. A jury later found the asserted design patent invalid, although it also concluded that Quince’s boots would have infringed the patent if it had been valid. Reuters reported on the verdict in June 2026.
That outcome does not establish that every UGG-style boot may be copied without consequence. Deckers still owns valuable rights in the UGG name and other brand assets, and every infringement analysis depends on the rights asserted and the particular product at issue.
The case does demonstrate a problem that established brands regularly face. A company may invest years of creative work and marketing into making a product recognizable, only to be told that the features consumers associate with it have become common within the category.
Product-design trade dress is particularly difficult to establish. The design must have acquired secondary meaning, which means consumers understand it as identifying a particular source, and it cannot be functional or generic. Courts are also careful not to use trademark law to give one company permanent control over useful product features or an entire style of goods.
Those limitations serve an important competitive purpose. A successful brand should not be able to claim every ankle-high shearling boot, ribbed bottle or neutral-colored package. At the same time, a copier may avoid any one protected feature while reproducing enough of the complete presentation to make the association obvious to consumers.
Dupe culture operates comfortably within that tension because the association with the original is often the reason the alternative has value.
Beauty brands understand the power of the shelf
The same issue is especially visible in beauty, where packaging frequently does as much commercial work as the product name.
A consumer may recognize a serum by the color of the liquid, the shape of the bottle, the placement of the label and the way the package appears in a bathroom photograph. A dupe can use a different name and logo while borrowing enough of those elements to create the same impression online or on a retail shelf.
Litigation involving beauty brand MCoBeauty illustrates how these disputes are developing. Glow Recipe’s owner has alleged that an MCoBeauty serum copies elements associated with its Watermelon Glow Dew Drops, including bottle shape, color scheme, serum color and packaging. Sol de Janeiro has also pursued claims involving MCoBeauty body mists and allegations that the products were promoted as smelling “exactly like” the originals. The defendants have disputed the claims, including whether the asserted packaging elements are distinctive and protectable.
The courts will decide the merits of those cases. For executives, the important point is that the dispute rarely concerns color, typography or bottle shape in isolation. The commercial effect comes from the accumulation of those choices.
This is where brands can have a legal blind spot. Marketing teams understand the full brand world instinctively, but the legal portfolio may protect only its most obvious pieces. The company has registered the name and logo, yet the packaging architecture, recurring color combinations, product configurations and other source-identifying features have not been documented or evaluated.
By the time a dupe enters the market, the brand may know immediately that its identity has been copied without having a clear answer about which right it can enforce.
“I found the dupe” is part of the commercial strategy
The way a product is marketed can be as important as the product itself. Phrases such as “same vibe,” “designer look for less,” “run, don’t walk” and “I found the dupe” tell the audience to view the alternative through its relationship with an established product.
Calling something a dupe does not automatically make it infringing. Consumers and commentators are generally free to compare products, discuss alternatives and express opinions about whether two products offer a similar experience. A company may also make truthful comparative claims, subject to the rules governing advertising and trademark use.
The analysis changes when the comparison becomes misleading or when it is combined with packaging and promotional material designed to suggest an affiliation that does not exist. Claims that a product is “exactly like” another may also create false advertising risk if they cannot be substantiated. If an influencer has been paid, received free products or earns affiliate revenue, the relationship must be disclosed clearly under the FTC’s endorsement guidance.
This makes influencer content relevant beyond ordinary social media monitoring. A brand selling a dupe may use its own name on the package while relying on creators to supply the connection to the original. The influencer tells consumers which product is being copied, describes the alternative as equivalent and places both products within the same visual frame.
That content can become evidence of how the product was positioned and what associations the seller intended to create. Intent alone will not establish infringement, but marketing language can become important when a court considers likely confusion, false advertising or the overall commercial context.
Brands should therefore monitor the full sales ecosystem rather than limiting enforcement reviews to the physical product. The retailer’s product page, paid creator content, search advertising, marketplace keywords and affiliate instructions may reveal a strategy that the packaging alone does not.
Dupe culture has moved beyond products
The language of dupes now extends into travel, hospitality, entertainment and lifestyle. Social media users promote “destination dupes” as less expensive or less crowded alternatives to places such as Santorini or the French Riviera. Content creators offer wedding dupes, restaurant dupes and versions of experiences associated with a particular luxury lifestyle.
Most of those comparisons do not create an IP issue. No one owns the atmosphere of a Mediterranean vacation, a minimalist hotel lobby or an expensive-looking dinner. The popularity of the language still matters because it shows how deeply imitation has been normalized as a tool of discovery.
Consumers are no longer embarrassed to buy the alternative. Finding the dupe is part of the achievement, and platforms reward the creator who can identify it first. Brands are now operating in a culture where their creative investment may be used as the search prompt for someone else’s product.
That changes the practical value of distinctiveness. If a brand’s identity can be reduced to a searchable collection of visual cues, businesses need to decide which of those cues can be protected and which will remain available for competitors to borrow.
Protecting the brand world before it becomes a category
A company cannot own a vibe, and attempting to claim every feature associated with a successful aesthetic would restrict legitimate competition. That does not mean executives should treat the larger brand world as legally irrelevant.
When we evaluate a consumer brand, we want to know which elements consistently appear together, how long they have been used and whether consumers recognize them as coming from one source. We also want to understand whether those elements are functional, common in the industry or already being used by competitors. That analysis can reveal potential trade dress, design patent, copyright and trademark protection that may not be obvious from reviewing the company’s name and logo alone.
Timing matters. Design patent applications generally need to be considered early, while evidence of acquired distinctiveness and consumer recognition must be developed over time. Packaging systems should be documented before they are repeatedly modified, and agreements with designers should establish ownership before a dispute arises. Companies expanding internationally must also account for the fact that the available rights and legal tests will differ across markets.
Brands should be equally disciplined when creating their own value-oriented products. A design team may believe it has made enough small changes to avoid copying, while the marketing department openly describes the product as a dupe and selects creators who will compare it directly with the original. Legal review needs to consider the complete presentation rather than approving the package, product page and influencer campaign separately.
The next major dupe cases may not provide a clear legal right in something as broad as a brand’s “vibe.” They are more likely to test whether a company can protect the coordinated commercial identity created by many smaller choices and whether a competitor crossed the line by reproducing enough of that identity to benefit from its recognition. Dupe culture has made imitation part of the sales pitch. Companies should respond by understanding which parts of their brand world are legally protectable, documenting how those elements create recognition and reviewing the entire path through which a lookalike reaches the consumer. A different logo will not always resolve the risk when everything around it has been designed to remind the buyer of someone else.
