Beauty dupes have come out of the shadows.
For Gen Z, discovering a lower-cost imitation of a cult product has become something to be proud of, not hidden; as a result, we’ve entered a new dupe era, whereby any product seems to be fair game. The shift was underlined by the rapid expansion of Australian beauty dupe brand MCoBeauty in the US over the past couple of months — it is now available on Target’s website and in 1,200 of its stores.
“Duping is a very serious matter, but it’s become so normalised to the point that we’ve almost forgotten just how serious it is,” says Marc Chaya, CEO of Maison Francis Kurkdjian, whose popular Baccarat Rouge 540 fragrance has been subjected to hundreds of copycats.
“Some dupes serve an excellent purpose — reminding those brands that are hiking up their margins beyond reason that consumers are savvy and won’t be held to ransom without very good cause. But some are less effective or integrity-poor duplications of the real deal that aren’t necessarily solving real problems or meeting real needs,” says Lisa Payne, head of beauty trends at analytics firm Stylus. “The dupes in that category potentially represent a flooding of the market precisely at a time [when underconsumption has come to symbolise far more than a TikTok trend] that we really don’t need more brands without utility or wider purpose.”
Brands are responding to the proliferation of dupes in different ways: some, like Charlotte Tilbury, are hitting out at dupes with guerilla marketing tactics. Many are leaning into educating customers about what goes into making the original products, as a way of justifying their higher price tags. Innovation has also become imperative for established brands looking to stay a step ahead of increasingly sophisticated dupes. What’s the most effective way for brands to protect themselves going forward?
Preventative measures
Litigation may be an option for some brands. Since launching in 2016, MCoBeauty has been sued by both Tarte Cosmetics and Chemcorp, each of which resulted in the brand discontinuing or altering its dupes.
However, litigation is an expensive route and success is not guaranteed. In December, Benefit Cosmetics unsuccessfully attempted to sue Elf Cosmetics for a dupe of the former’s Roller Lash mascara. According to Bloomberg, the presiding judge ruled that Elf’s use of a different component and packaging was distinct enough as to not confuse customers, stating that “an intent to copy is not inherently an intent to deceive”.
“While it is important to protect a product using intellectual property rights, brands don’t necessarily have the resources to protect every angle of every product — that just wouldn’t be commercially viable,” says Iona Silverman, intellectual property lawyer and partner at law firm Freeths. “The costs of litigation in the UK, like many countries, are prohibitive both for brand owners and for companies seeking to defend the design of their products.”
Another preventative strategy is to keep formulations, packaging design and product concepts tightly under wraps to ensure they are harder to dupe, by using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The speed at which new products are being analysed and duplicated after a launch has pushed brands to implement strict confidentiality measures that include extending NDAs beyond just manufacturers to now influencers, testers and reviewers who receive the products pre-release.
“In my experience, smaller brands often don’t enter into NDAs with their manufacturers, and even more crucially don’t consider ownership of intellectual property (IP) in their product formulations,” says Silverman. “Entering into contracts to protect IP and confidentiality is a basic requirement for any business. It isn’t a tax on smaller brands, it is a fundamental consideration.”
Brands such as Lady Gaga’s Haus Labs are increasingly investing in proprietary formulas and straying away from using third-party laboratories. However, experts warn that this may not be financially viable for independent brands. “Beauty product innovation from the established manufacturers will always lure brands, not least because of the cost-prohibitive nature of own-brand labs and privatised research and development,” says Stylus’s Payne.
Chaya points out that fragrance formulas cannot be kept under wraps or legally protected, so brands’ hands are effectively tied. “If we [Maison Francis Kurkdjian] wanted to pursue legal action against dupes, it could only be on the grounds of parasitism, which would constitute everything except what’s actually in the bottle,” he says. “If there was recognised IP in the fragrance world, then we could conduct legal action and win, but today this is not the case for perfumers and that is extremely unfair.”
Chaya is advocating for further legal protections for perfumers, as well as speaking to students about the ethics of duping. “I started advocating against dupes a couple of years ago and it wasn’t easy,” he says. “It’s really an ecosystem: the first step is having the ability to protect IP, the second is encouraging the creation of an ethical environment in the industry, and the third is giving customers a transparent look into the fragrance industry to make better informed decisions.”
Innovation and education
Brands are increasingly trading courtrooms for the court of public opinion as they fight to defend their territory. Whether the original product typically holds an advantage over its dupe, is in the OGs demonstrable access to higher quality ingredients and manufacturing.
Glow Recipe is just one of many brands that are leaning into transparency and education in the face of incessant duping. The company recently embarked on an 11-city masterclass tour where co-founders Sarah Lee and Christine Chang gave die-hard fans and newcomers the ability to get up close and personal with the brand’s products.
“Sharing our extensive backgrounds in skincare as well as stories of our Korean heritage really helped inspire the audience,” Lee said of the brand’s masterclasses. “Especially in the last couple of years, where we have seen such an influx of new, younger customers. We wanted to make sure that they really understood what our products are all about, why we created them, and the inspiration behind each and every formulation along with the brand story.”
In October, Charlotte Tilbury called out dupes — specifically of her brand’s Hollywood Flawless Filter complexion booster — in a now-viral, guerilla-style marketing clip. “Other brands want to replicate its viral success without the expertise, science and innovation behind my high-performance formula,” Tilbury tells Vogue Business.
Months after the clip surfaced, the brand is doubling down on its disruptive ‘undupable’ ethos with its latest campaign: ‘Legendary. For a reason.’ The campaign emphasises the brand’s unique formulations, swathe of celebrity endorsements and cult status, tapping into an aspirational appeal that dupes can’t so easily replicate.
Charlotte Tilbury is also honing in on innovation. “It [the Hollywood Flawless Filter] was revolutionary when I started the brand,” Tilbury says. “Now, in our market-leading position, it is even more important for me to [...] disrupt through innovation — which is why I continue to invest heavily in product development, [and] why I continue to communicate closely with my customers focusing on inventing advanced solutions for their problems.”
Iris Smit, founder of Australian brand The Quick Flick, has also taken to social media to call out the differences between dupes of and the original. “Since our eyeliner stamp first started getting copied in its early days, we’ve taken to social media to inform customers about this and be transparent in the difference in quality and what you’re really getting,” Smit says. “It’s important we address this publicly to ensure customers are aware of products trying to pass off as ours. We’ve had many instances of customers writing in with product complaints only to discover they purchased a copycat; we’ve also had influencers negatively reviewing our brand after purchasing a dupe from Amazon because it looked so similar.”
Alongside educating consumers, The Quick Flick has patented its winged eyeliner stamp, sent cease and desist letters to dupers, and provided copies of trademarks and patents to platforms such as Amazon to get products infringing on its IP removed.
As duping continues virtually unchecked, the pressure is on brands to innovate and create near-constant newness. “We’re looking for something that can excite our customers for each and every launch that’s to come,” says Glow Recipe’s Chan.
Cultivating communities is also critical, says Katie Baron, content director at Stylus. “It’s one thing to replicate a product, but a genuine community with a unique and heartfelt set of values and perspectives is far harder to simulate. Of course, in some instances, the product — including the dupe — has enough clout for the storytelling to be irrelevant, but access [to information, insights and other likeminded people] is of massive significance and often underscores longevity in a way that single products, even the most beloved, often can’t on their own.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
