I love a good beauty dupe as much as the next person, but it wasn’t until I bought a drugstore dupe for a luxury brand’s best selling pressed powder that I stopped to think of the legality behind them. Being a college student means many things, and one of those is saving money at every possible expense. Plus, the dopamine rush when discovering an alternative for your staple product at more than 3x the saving is really exciting. But as I was browsing the aisles of the drugstore, I couldn’t help but wonder: “How many lawsuits have been made against these brands for copying their bestsellers?” So today, we’re answering it.
Contrary to popular belief, I’m actually not the biggest fan of the Charlotte Tilbury airbrush pressed powder. I find my oily skin easily overpowering the finish and leaving me looking like a freshly oiled cast-iron pan less than 2 hrs after application. The dilemma was that I really did enjoy the smoothing and blurred effect that appeared in all my photos when I did use it. On the hunt for an alternative, I found McoBeauty’s dupe. And dare I say… I like it better. Matter of fact, I made a whole video dedicated to it on my content creation page because that’s how in awe I was, and for only $10.
What continued to pique my interest was how a lot of the brand centers itself around duping these high end bestsellers. I felt like I was seeing double. So, like any good pre-law student does, I began to research the legality of dupes and turns out the market is hot!
McoBeauty has been sued by a few brands in the past on the basis of “copying” their brands items. However, a 2024 interview by ABC News Australia with their lawyer, Len Mancini, revealed how the brand was able to dispute such allegations. Mancini mentions the ideal of patents. CT’ as a brand has trademarked the words “hollywood flawless filter” when used in combination. With McoBeauty only using “flawless” they didn’t infringe such trademarks. Additionally, CT’s team trademarked the diamond logo, in which McoBeauty’s team switched to a circle to avoid infringement.
Another aspect many lawyers have made note of when looking at dupes is to understand if a consumer would otherwise be confused when looking at the items side by side on which is the real and which is the dupe. However, Shelley Sullivan, founder of McoBeauty, has very clear stated that consumers are aware of what environemtns they shop in when looking for a product. A Sephora is different from a Target which is further reflected by their prices.
The discussion of dupes among the beauty community has always been popular, but a few question its morality. Some individuals sympathize with brands who create a unique product only for it to be replicated by a mainstream company. Others critique the economic profit of beauty and question if brands should even charge such high prices when they can be replicated by others for a fraction of the price. As a beauty creator and consumer (and pre-law student) I understand both arguments.
Are dupes moral? Should these high end brands be charging consumers so much? Or should consumers have the freedom to choose where to put their money? I rest my case. To dupe, or not to dupe, either way remember to stay uniquely you!