Lots of people love hyping up “dupes” on social media. Essentially, they’re cheaper versions of expensive clothing or makeup, and they look almost exactly the same.
But many brands have had enough. They’ve started suing retailers over these dupe fakes. Why? What’s changed to make them sue more now? Let’s take a look.
What “dupe” means in the legal filings
Lawyers talking about dupes are referring directly to products that seem too similar to a real brand item. They might look similar or feel rather similar.
The lawsuits against such items usually cite the main federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act, along with trade dress or design patent claims. Anything that looks too similar may cross a legal line.
How trade dress fits (and its limits)
“Trade dress” is simply a product’s look & feel. It may involve a specific color combination or packaging, perhaps even how a garment is cut. Courts look closely at such specifications.
They don’t want to stop other companies from using common shapes or colors, and that’s where most of these dupe lawsuits end up. They argue over the differences between originality and everyday design.
Where the newest filings are landing
There have been several dupe lawsuits just in 2025 alone.
In June, Lululemon went after Costco in California, while in October, Smucker filed a lawsuit against Trader Joe’s. American Eagle also has a case against Amazon in New York.
The products & companies are different. But the complaints are the same about companies duping with fakes.
When lawsuits cite social media “dupe” chatter
Interestingly, social media has also become part of the evidence. Lululemon’s complaint included social media screenshots that featured influencers referring to Costco items as “Lululemon dupes.”
Attorneys used these as evidence that shoppers do see the two items in the same way.
How products are described in the pleadings
So what products are causing issues? Lululemon claims that Costco copied its Scuba hoodies & Define jackets, as well as its ABC pants. Meanwhile, Smucker claims Trader Joe’s copied its Uncrustables sandwiches, right down to the blue packaging.
There are some specific reasons why more brands are suing now, which we’ll look at later.
What courts have already seen in resale & marketplace disputes
But it’s not the first time dupe fakes have been seen in courts.
Previously, Chanel sued retailers like The RealReal & What Goes Around Comes Around. The designer accused the brands of selling counterfeit goods, creating a pattern for how brands fight back when they believe another company is misusing their image.
What “contributory infringement” means in retailer cases
A few cases go beyond the seller itself. A marketplace like Amazon or seller platform that allows vendors to sell lookalike goods may give the brand a chance to complain.
They can claim “contributory infringement,” which just means that the marketplace knew what was happening & didn’t stop it. It’s become an important part of recent dupe filings.
Court decisions have lowered the parody shield
Why have so many brands decided to start suing?
It all comes down to the Supreme Court ruling against VIP Products in the 2023 Jack Daniel’s case. VIP had created a dog toy that looked just like a Jack Daniel’s bottle, but with jokes on the label.
The Court ruled that companies couldn’t use parody claims to avoid trademark laws, especially when they use the brand in a way that looks real. It gave companies the chance to move faster on dupe lawsuits.
Marketplace rules now expose more seller info
The INFORM Consumers Act also kicked off in 2023. It forced large marketplaces to start collecting & showing far more data to customers about a large-scale seller’s identity.
The Federal Trade Commission used the law to force Temu to reveal such data. It allowed brands to go straight to a vendor with complaints about their products.
Social commerce has supercharged “dupe” sales
We also can’t forget the role of TikTok. The checkout option is built right into the app, so “dupe” posts convert sales in the same scroll, and that’s quite different from a trend without a direct buy button.
Brands could see the issue happening in real time. It led to them filing lawsuits sooner because the effect on sales is more immediate for them. They’re not having it any longer.
Sources: Please see here for a complete listing of all sources that were consulted in the preparation of this article.
