By Mark Seavy  

With the rise of social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, “dupes” have surged in popularity with young consumers as a low-cost means for acquiring the look and status of high-end brands. 

The trend hasn’t gone unnoticed among brand owners and the courts. But dupes have proven trickier to navigate than traditional knockoffs, since they rarely carry a trademarked logo that would identify them.   

Nevertheless, some polls have shown that 71% of Gen Z consumers and 67% of Millennials buy dupes across product categories through sites like Temu, Shein, Amazon, and others.  

In some cases, companies specialize in supplying dupes, industry executives said. Leather goods supplier Sitoy Group Holdings, for example, posts videos on social media showcasing how the quality of its $100 handbags is almost identical to those selling for $1,000 or more. Sitoy also advertises that its items use the same production lines as Prada, Tumi, and Michael Kors. Chicjoc, a Chinese fashion brand popular on Taobao and Tmall, claims to use the same fabric suppliers as Chanel and other labels. 

“Lawsuits can be expensive and discovery [during the legal process] can bury a brand, so, when you send a cease-and-desist letter, you have to be confident of your rights,” Megan Bannigan, a partner at the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, said during The Fashion Law’s webinar Dupes: Understanding Legal Implications and Challenges. “And if you receive a cease-and-desist letter you need to determine if there are any rights involved because it is certainly the case that brands overreach all the time.” 

Several recent examples illustrate the intricacies of these cases.  

Retailer Williams Sonoma, for example, sued Dupe.com last year alleging the eCommerce operator made false claims against its brand and infringed its copyrights. Dupe.com uses a version of Google Lens, which allows users to input a product URL in order to receive other shoppable options based on price. In the case of Willians Sonoma, Dupe.com claimed a West Elm brand chair carried a $2,000 price but could be had for 80-90% less at other web sites. Dupe.com has maintained that Williams Sonoma is trying to protect its pricing power rather than its IP rights. 

The claims aren’t limited to high-end products, however. TikTok influencer jazzstyleshome discovered wooden spoons and spatulas nearly identical to those at Williams Sonoma at a lower price at Dollar Tree. And influencer Jennifer Reimold has shared dupes with followers, including a Lululemon puffer jacket that sells for $300 but that she found in a similar style for $70. 

“There is an argument here that people know what they are getting and there is no confusion because people understand that a product is being positioned as similar to, but not the same as, and is just a lower-priced option,” said Alexandra Roberts, a law professor at Northeastern University. “Brands put a lot of money into developing these products and they deserve protection.  It is a fine line because we are in a society where things should be available to everyone. But to get people to innovate and invest in these products, there must be some kind of protection.” 

In responding to dupes, some suppliers have taken action outside the courtroom. Lululemon hosted a dupe swap at the Century City Mall in Los Angeles, CA to allow consumers to trade in dupes of its $98 Align leggings (the dupes can be found on TikTok for $27) for the authentic Align High Rise Pant.   

Hermès, however, didn’t appear to act against Walmart when the retailer launched a bag (dubbed by fans as the “Wirkin” bag) priced at around $100 that appeared to be very similar to the brand’s Birkin bag, which retails starting at $9,000. Walmart has since ended sales of the dupe.  

“When you bring a lawsuit, there are brands that are very aggressive, but it is an enormous amount of money to do that,” said Relani Belous, founder of Belous Law and the Trademark Channel. “But it is a cost of doing business. I don’t think it will go away, and some brands will make an example, but they are coming up with ways [of handling the issue] other than suing.”