/ Quality, formulation, and reputation: the invisible victims of dupes
March 3, 2026Senior Associate
Introduction
Dupes—short for duplicates—have become an unprecedented cultural and commercial phenomenon in the global cosmetics, personal care, and fragrance market. Unlike counterfeits, dupes do not seek to pass themselves off as the original product: they do not replicate the brand or use the protected distinctive sign. However, they enthusiastically imitate the silhouette, aesthetics, look & feel, sensory appeal, and even the narrative of a high-end item.
On social media, this duplicated aesthetic is proudly displayed: consumers and content creators share comparisons as if they were paying homage to prestigious brands, when in reality they represent economic and reputational pressure on those who invest in design, research, marketing, and quality control.
The rise of social media, notably TikTok and Instagram, as well as the influencer economy, has reinforced this trend, turning the dupe into a symbol of “smart” consumption, especially for Generation Z, which values accessibility over exclusivity. But this apparent democratization of luxury comes at a cost: it erodes the value of the original, strains the limits of intellectual property, and opens up a legal risk that is rarely explained to consumers.
This article examines the phenomenon from a global perspective, combining legal, cultural, and market analysis, and taking a critical stance: dupes are not a harmless form of access, but a practice that can discourage innovation, parasitize the reputation of others, and create new inequalities in the digital economy.
What is a dupe really?
The fine line between inspiration and exploitation. While counterfeiting involves the unauthorized reproduction of an identical or virtually indistinguishable brand for similar products, the dupe operates on another level: it imitates the appearance, design, packaging, color scheme, or experience of the original product, but without directly copying the registered trademark.
Its legitimacy rests on the idea that the consumer is not confused about the source of the product. Consumers buy the dupe knowing that it is not the original, but seeking the same result, the same symbolic gesture, or the same aesthetic effect at a substantially lower price.
However, this conceptual distinction does not resolve the legal risk: dupes can generate associative confusion, parasitic exploitation, or indirect denigration of the original product, issues typically addressed by unfair competition laws.
In other words: they do not carry the logo, but they do carry the intention. They do not seek to deceive about the origin, but they do seek to capture the reputation that others have built with enormous investment. And therein lies the problem.
The role of social media: from silent imitation to viral phenomenon
Before the explosion of social media platforms, imitations were tolerated as extensions of white label products. Today, however, they constitute a media culture. Various social media platforms are full of videos comparing dupes to original products—which are of higher value—while influencers specializing in dupes accumulate millions of views. Viral aesthetics replace originality as a driver of consumption.
The logic of platforms transforms any design into a replicable pattern. Everything can be decontextualized and reduced to a floating aesthetic ready to be copied. The symbolic durability of design is shortened; nothing lasts longer than a few hours, a few trends, or a few hashtags.
This environment encourages complex products—a perfume, a cosmetic formula, a dermatological product—to be reduced to ingredients, textures, or colors that are easy to replicate superficially. But imitation of appearance does not reproduce quality, as the original formulations include technology, dermatological research, and safety controls, while many dupes simplify concentrations, resort to synthetic additives, or cause irritation due to differences in the applicator or packaging.
Consumers believe they are making a smart purchase, but this is not always the case. Aesthetics can be copied, but science cannot.
Intellectual property: a global framework that falls short
The phenomenon of dupes is putting intellectual property systems worldwide to the test. Traditional tools—trademarks, innovation patents, industrial designs, copyrights, unfair competition—are sometimes insufficient in the face of rapid, massive, algorithm-driven imitations.
In the area of trademarks, we are undoubtedly facing a risk of association. Although dupes do not usually use an identical sign, they can generate undue association through naming that suggests equivalence, packaging that resembles the silhouette of the original, and comparative claims, to name a few. The risk is not direct confusion, but dilution and reputational parasitism.
Associated with industrial designs and packaging protection, many innovative bottles, cases, and applicators are protected by industrial designs or models, but protection requires registration, does not cover functional elements, and is limited in time and territory.
The World Intellectual Property Organization has recognized that the current framework is insufficient to protect designs that originate on digital platforms and are easily copied.
Copyright is only applicable when there is sufficient artistic originality. In cosmetics or perfumery, its scope is limited but relevant in distinctive labels, illustrations, or typography.
Unfair competition is probably the area where dupes cause the most friction. Imitation is not illegal per se, but it is when it involves a risk of confusion or association, exploitation of another’s reputation, systematic copying with a parasitic effect, and there is misleading advertising or illegitimate comparative advertising.
Consumers
Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012) is leading the rise of dupes. For this audience, access is more important than exclusivity, authenticity does not always have symbolic value, aesthetics are replicable, and consumption is a performative act, not an affiliation with brands.
But this supposed democratization of luxury is also a response to precariousness, as the prices of premium products have escalated, and many consumers can no longer—nor want to—pay the cost of prestige, considering this point irrelevant.
Copying becomes a strategy for cultural access, a way to participate in the conversation without paying the entry price. But this logic does not strengthen the value of intangibles and may discourage future innovation.
Environmental impact: the hidden cost of the dupe
One aspect that is rarely discussed is the ecological impact. Non-recyclable packaging, cheap and less sustainable ingredients, microplastics, lower durability—all of which increase waste. The dupe encourages cycles of overproduction and accelerated waste, aligning with the logic of fast beauty that mass-produces items in this category. What seemed like an affordable solution becomes a multiplied problem.
Conclusion
Duplicates are not innocent. Although they are not counterfeits in the classic legal sense, they do represent a way of taking advantage of someone else’s efforts, protected by a gray area between legality and permissible imitation. Digital culture has amplified this ambiguity, turning copying into a celebratory gesture that obscures the risks to innovation, quality, design, the environment, and consumer confidence.
From a global legal perspective, current frameworks associated with intellectual property and consumer protection offer useful tools, but they are incomplete in the face of the speed and scale of the phenomenon. The real tension is not between original and copy, but between creation and imitation, between symbolic value and replicability, between investment and algorithmic immediacy.
Duplicates are a symptom of something bigger: an economy in which the replicable displaces the valuable, and where aesthetics matter more than innovation. In this context, the defense of intellectual property is not only a legal issue, but a vindication of the cultural value of design and creative work, which today risks being diluted in the age of virility and immediacy.
