Gen Z made dupes mainstream: how brands can respond legally in 2026

Dupes: not knock-offs, but a choice

Global economic losses from counterfeit and imitation goods are expected to grow from about $267 billion in 2022 to about $350 billion in 2026 (2026 State of Brand Integrity Report). As the market grows, so does “dupe” buying. The word comes from “duplicate” and refers to cheap products that imitate the design or features of an expensive brand. Dupes used to carry the stigma of “knock-offs” or “fakes,” but now shoppers recommend and buy them openly on social media.

Among Gen Z in particular, dupes are increasingly seen not as cheap substitutes but as “the smart choice,” a view spreading fast across social media communities and consumer reviews. The trend has been reinforced by falling real purchasing power: according to the IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook, global growth is slowing to 3.1% while inflation rises to 4.4%. On TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, content like “Try this instead of the real ○○” or “Get it for KRW 100,000 instead of KRW 1,000,000” is part of everyday viewing, and popular dupes sell out on e-commerce sites.

Dupes are no longer just a legal problem. “Dupe buying” has become culture and trend, and companies need to take a fresh look at their brand, distribution and legal strategies.

Key takeaways:

• Economic losses from counterfeit and imitation goods are expected to reach about $350 billion in 2026 (2026 State of Brand Integrity Report).
• Because dupes don’t copy trademarks, the legal picture is complex; disputes often turn on trade dress infringement or unfair competition law.
• In June 2025, Lululemon sued Costco for trade dress infringement, and some of the products were pulled from sale.
• Registering design rights, trademarks and trade dress in advance is the strongest legal basis when a dispute arises.
• MarqVision moves from detecting a dupe to completing a removal request within 12 to 72 hours on average on marketplaces.

How the spread of dupes erodes brand value

Dupes may appeal to shoppers on price, but they’re a serious threat to brands. Premium, luxury and designer brands in particular explain their products’ value through distinctive design, function and brand image, so the circulation of look-alikes can directly undermine that value.

The spread of dupe buying costs brands in these ways.

More resistance to full prices

As dupes multiply, shoppers naturally think, “It’s similar, and it’s cheaper?” The genuine product starts to feel more expensive, and holding the full price gets harder. Demands for discounts rise, and so do reactions like “I won’t buy it at that price.” Pricing policies brands spent years building can start to wobble.

A diluted brand identity

Visual elements such as design, color and packaging are central to a brand’s identity. When dupes copy them, the lines between brands blur for shoppers: “Haven’t I seen this somewhere?” “It looks like that brand’s product.” In the end, what makes the brand different stops standing out.

Losing your most loyal fans

Long-time customers who love a brand often buy because they trust the value of the genuine product. If dupes start getting a reputation for “decent quality,” even these customers may leave, thinking, “This is good enough, I’ll just buy this.” Value for money can start to feel more compelling than the emotional satisfaction the brand provides.

Confusion with counterfeits and low-quality products

Some shoppers can’t tell dupes from genuine products, and after a bad experience with a low-quality dupe, the brand’s credibility and value can suffer. Reviews like “The quality isn’t as good as I expected” or “I’m disappointed in the material” may actually come from dupes, but shoppers take them as disappointment in the brand.

Now that image-led channels such as social media, content commerce and influencer marketing are major sales channels, the brand perception shoppers form can be damaged far faster and more easily than before.

A global brand that went to court: Lululemon

One such product has a design reminiscent of Hermès’s Birkin bag, yet costs just $78 (Forbes, December 2024). The Birkin starts at about $9,000, so the look-alike sells for less than 1% of the price.

Cases like this are spreading quickly beyond fashion and accessories to sportswear, beauty and other industries. Some brands are refusing to stand by as dupes spread and are taking legal action. The best-known example is sportswear brand Lululemon. In 2025, Lululemon sued Costco in US federal district court, arguing that some clothing sold under Costco’s private labels, such as Kirkland and Spyder, was “far too similar” to its signature products.

The items had silhouettes and details very similar to Lululemon’s iconic products, such as the Scuba hoodie, the Define jacket and the ABC pants, yet sold for just $8 to $22, less than a fifth of the full price. Lululemon treated this as trade dress infringement and took legal action on the grounds that it confused consumers and damaged the brand’s distinctive value. After the suit was filed, some of the products were pulled from Costco’s online store.

What is trade dress?

Trade dress is the distinctive image that lets consumers recognize a particular brand: the overall look, design, packaging, color, shape, size and feel of a product or service. Unlike a trademark, it’s an intellectual property right that protects the overall design, even without a logo or lettering. Want another example of fighting counterfeits on trade dress grounds? Take a look at MSCHF’s story too.

Lululemon has filed design infringement suits before, against Peloton (2021) and Calvin Klein (2012). The Costco suit is another clear example of how sensitively brands are reacting to the spread of dupes.

Look-alike design rulings and controversies in Korea

Legal disputes over dupes happen in Korea too. The best-known case is the 2015 suit between Playnomore and Hermès. Playnomore launched a bag with a design reminiscent of the Birkin, and Hermès sued, claiming its distinctive design had been infringed. The court ultimately sided with Hermès, and the ruling remains a key precedent showing that look-alike designs can be challenged legally in Korea.

There have also been controversies in consumer communities when some Korean indie cosmetics brands launched dupes imitating global luxury brands’ product names, packaging and colors. But under current law, the standards for judging design similarity or unfair competition are often vague, and there are calls for the Korean Intellectual Property Office to clarify its design similarity criteria and for the Unfair Competition Prevention Act to be amended. Brands at home and abroad are also being urged to manage their legal risk.

The most important lesson of the Playnomore ruling is that brand designs must be registered and managed as legal assets too. Hermès was in a strong position in the suit because of design registrations and a history of use built up over many years. Many Korean brands, by contrast, only consider registering designs after launch, which limits what they can do after the fact. Securing design rights, trademarks and trade dress systematically in advance is the strongest legal basis when a dispute arises.

The protection strategy brands need in the age of dupes

When look-alikes are consumed as a trend rather than as simple knock-offs, lawsuits alone aren’t enough. Brands need a strategic approach that goes beyond protecting individual products to protect the brand’s whole identity and consumers’ trust.

1. Register designs and trade dress

Register your brand IP systematically, including product appearance, packaging and logos. With these registered in advance, you have clear grounds for legal action or platform reports when look-alikes appear, so you can act more effectively.

2. Set up social media monitoring

You need a system that continuously monitors whether your brand is being mentioned alongside dupes, or whether look-alike marketing is happening, on social media, blogs and YouTube. Phrases like “the ○○ brand look” or “budget version” can confuse consumers, so catch them early. A Brand Intelligence Agent can help here by analyzing e-commerce data in real time and supporting fast decisions.

3. Prepare a platform response process

Major platforms where brands are highly visible, such as Amazon, TikTok and Shopee, each have their own IP protection policies and reporting procedures. Knowing the evidence and reporting methods they require in advance, and organizing your internal response process, lets you act much faster when an IP risk arises. Amazon, for example, lets you automate infringement reports through Amazon Brand Registry, and Meta (Instagram and Facebook) runs a separate IP infringement reporting portal. Because the types of evidence each platform accepts differ (trademark certificates, design registration certificates, images of genuine products and so on), simply documenting the forms and required paperwork for the platforms you use most can cut response time from days to hours.

4. Strengthen authentication and consumer education

A genuine product isn’t just a product with a logo on it. It embodies the brand’s philosophy and quality. Brands should also help consumers see that difference, naturally conveying the value and identity of the genuine product through content, campaigns and product pages. Effective approaches include adding QR codes or NFC tags so shoppers can verify authenticity instantly, and storytelling that explains materials, manufacturing and quality standards in social content. The goal is an environment where consumers can answer for themselves, “Why should I buy the real thing?” The more clearly a brand communicates the experience and service dupes cannot match, the more it can win on value rather than price.

What brands need now isn’t just enforcement but a systematic strategy built around IP protection. MarqVision helps brands grow sustainably with its AI-based brand protection solution, from detecting and blocking counterfeits to building an IP portfolio. Book a free consultation with MarqVision to assess your brand’s exposure to dupes and start an IP protection strategy that strengthens your brand.

FAQ

How are dupes treated differently from counterfeits under the law?

Counterfeits copy trademarks or logos without permission, a clear trademark violation, so platform reports and legal action are relatively direct. Dupes don’t copy trademarks directly; they imitate only the design and appearance, so disputes often turn on trade dress infringement or unfair competition law, and brands that registered design rights and trade dress in advance are in a stronger position.

Why did Lululemon base its Costco suit on trade dress rather than trademark rights?

The Costco products didn’t use Lululemon’s logo or trademarks, so trademark infringement alone would have been hard to argue. Trade dress protects a product’s overall silhouette, colors and design elements even without a logo, so Lululemon could use consumer confusion and damage to its distinctive brand value as legal grounds, and some of the products were in fact pulled from sale.

In what order should a brand respond when it suspects damage from dupes?

Start by checking the status of your design rights, trademarks and trade dress registrations to secure a legal basis. Then monitor mentions and visibility of look-alike products on major channels such as Amazon, TikTok and Instagram every week, and document each platform’s reporting requirements and supporting paperwork. That can cut response time from days to hours when infringement actually occurs.

How long does MarqVision take to get a dupe or look-alike design removed from a marketplace after detecting it?

MarqVision responds in four steps: detection, evidence collection, removal request and confirmation of completion. On marketplaces, removal happens within 12 to 72 hours on average. For dupes that don’t copy trademarks directly, though, speed and success rates depend on whether trade dress or design rights are registered, so registering IP rights in advance is the key variable in how fast you can respond. Dupes aren’t a passing fad. They’re a new trend born of changing consumer values and social-media-driven buying, and they’re threatening brands’ identity and trust right now. Brands that stay silent or respond late risk having the value of their genuine products judged on price alone, and seeing years of marketing strategy and brand equity eroded.