You can blame it on social media, on a general trend away from brand names, on Gen Z. The Internet is replete with theories on why dupe culture is – well, now a culture. Regardless of the reason, it is indisputable that there is a rise in consumer interest in dupes. 

What is a dupe? Dupe advocates would likely call a dupe an “affordable alternative to a high-end product,” particularly in fashion where consumers have grown increasingly skeptical about the rising prices of luxury goods. Critics, including brand owners, would call dupes “knockoffs” or “counterfeits.” However they are defined, “dupes” and “dupe culture” are pervasive across beauty and fashion and are marked by the rise of websites like dupes.com, mobile apps like DupesLab, and the wave of ever-present dupe reviews on TikTok, Instagram, and other social media websites.

Historically, counterfeits, knockoffs, and imitation products were held at bay through trademark and trade dress infringement actions, often brought under the federal Lanham Act or state law corollaries. See 5 U.S.C. sections 1051 et seq. For example, products labeled “Gucii” or “Louis Vutton” on Canal Street are hands-down infringing products subject to the Lanham Act. But times have changed with the rise of dupe culture because the problem that brand owners now face is that their tried-and-true tools for combatting look-alike products – the Lanham Act and similar state laws – do not appear to be equipped to deal with dupes. 

The “keystone” of a Lanham trademark or trade dress infringement claim is a “likelihood of confusion,” i.e., “whether the defendant’s use is ‘likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.’” Jack Daniel’s Props. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 147 (2023) (quoting 5 U.S.C. sections 1114(1)(a), 1125(a)(1)(A)). But in dupe culture, consumers actively seek out the dupes and are, by nature, not confused, mistaken, or deceived. So what can a brand do in response?

Here are some recent cases that may prove instructive regarding brand protection against dupes as they progress: 

• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:25-cv-5864 (C.D. Cal., complaint filed June 27, 2025). Lululemon accused Costco of selling and manufacturing imitations of its Scuba sweatshirts, Define jackets, and ABC pants, alleging trade dress infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and patent infringement and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks damages in the form of lost profits and for “significant harm” done to Lululemon’s brand and reputation. On August 21, 2025, Costco filed an answer to the complaint, largely denying the allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses, including trademark, trade dress, and patent invalidity. On August 26, 2025, Jacques Moret Inc. filed an unopposed motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 on the grounds that it is the designer, importer, and supplier of the DANSKIN® and JOCKEY® products accused of trade dress, trademark, patent infringement and unfair competition. On September 2, 2025, the court granted Jacques Moret Inc.’s motion to intervene, holding that Moret shall be listed as a defendant and ordered Moret to respond to the complaint within 21 days. 
• Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Carrot Cart, Inc. d/b/a dupe.com, No. 1:24-cv-6597 (S.D.N.Y., complaint filed Aug. 30, 2024). Williams-Sonoma sued dupe.com – a website that purports to allow shoppers to “[f]ind similar products for less” through online reverse image-type search functions. The complaint alleges claims of false advertising under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Delaware state law, deceptive trade practices under Delaware state law, and copyright infringement. In November 2024, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. Williams-Sonoma thereafter amended its complaint, and the defendant moved to dismiss again in February 2025. On September 10, 2025, the court denied the first motion to dismiss as moot. The second motion to dismiss is under submission.
• Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince, No. 3:23-cv-4850 (N.D. Cal., complaint filed June 12, 2023). Deckers, the parent company of Ugg, brought suit against Last Brand, Inc., the parent company of Quince, for alleged trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and California common law, unfair competition under California statutory and common law, and patent infringement relating to Quince’s alleged “copycat” version of Ugg’s Classic Ultra Mini boots. The case was transferred from the Central District of California to the Northern District of California, where Quince filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement claim. Ugg filed an amended complaint, which Quince answered. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment and motions in limine, which the court heard on September 4, 2025. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding magistrate judge selection for settlement or private mediation selection and submit a joint status report regarding mediation by September 18, 2025. The court further ordered the parties to propose at least three sets of dates for trial during the first quarter of 2026. The motions for summary judgment were taken under submission.

Until courts weigh in further on dupe culture, or until Congress decides it is time to refresh the language of the Lanham Act, brands should: 

• Ensure all intellectual property is registered as appropriate, including trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, and design patents, in key geographic markets
• Monitor for any dupes or other counterfeiting activity, including watching for any unauthorized or misleading use of the brand by dupe companies and influencers on social media
• Take legal action against infringing products and misleading marketing and advertising, which may range from a cease-and-desist letter or a takedown notice at the outset to avoid high legal fees-
• Consider use of “look for” advertising that directs a consumer to “look for” particular and distinctive elements of the brand’s products
• Engage with influencers (utilizing giveaways and promotional products) to combat the widespread dissemination of information on dupe products on social media  
• Continue to innovate and reinforce brand image to maintain consumer loyalty and differentiation in the marketplace