Introduction
Fashion today is no longer a mere expression of personal taste; it is a powerful vehicle of identity, aspiration, and economic value. What was once primarily aesthetic has evolved into a multi-trillion-dollar global industry driven by branding, perception, and exclusivity. In India, this transformation has been particularly pronounced. Consumers increasingly associate value not merely with the functional attributes of a product, but with the brand itself, its reputation, heritage, and symbolic capital.
This brand-centric economy, however, has also intensified legal vulnerability. As fashion brands invest heavily in design, advertising, and market positioning, they simultaneously become attractive targets for those seeking to capitalise on established goodwill without incurring equivalent creative or commercial investment. The proliferation of counterfeits, look-alikes, and so-called “dupes” has therefore emerged as one of the most persistent and complex challenges at the intersection of intellectual property law and the fashion industry.
While counterfeiting is a familiar legal adversary, the rise of look-alikes and dupes often marketed as “inspired” alternatives occupies a more ambiguous space. These practices test the boundaries of trademark law, trade dress protection, and unfair competition, forcing courts and regulators to recalibrate traditional doctrines of confusion and infringement.
Counterfeits, Look-Alikes and Dupes: Understanding the Distinction
From a legal perspective, it is critical to distinguish between counterfeits and dupes, even though both seek to free-ride on the commercial success of original products.
Counterfeits are unauthorised reproductions that replicate a brand’s trademark, logo, or trade dress with the deliberate intent to deceive consumers into believing that the product originates from the legitimate brand owner. Such conduct squarely constitutes trademark infringement and often attracts both civil and criminal liability.
Dupes (derived from “duplicate”), by contrast, typically avoid direct use of the brand name or logo. Instead, they mimic the overall appearance, aesthetic, or functional attributes of a popular product and are marketed as lower-cost alternatives. While dupes may not always cross the traditional threshold of trademark infringement, they nonetheless operate in close proximity to unfair competition and passing off, particularly where overall similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion.
Look-alikes occupy a middle ground, products that replicate key visual and design cues of a brand’s offering while making minimal modifications to evade direct copying. In practice, these categories increasingly blur, creating enforcement challenges for rights holders and interpretive difficulties for courts.
The Expanding Landscape of Trademark Confusion
Trademark law is fundamentally premised on preventing consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. In the fashion sector, where brand recognition is often instantaneous and visual, this principle assumes heightened significance.
The increasing use of marketing phrases such as “dupe of” or “brand-inspired” raises a novel problem: should such expressions themselves be registrable as trademarks, or are they merely descriptive reflections of online culture? Granting exclusive rights over trend-driven expressions risks overcrowding the trademark register with marks that lack inherent distinctiveness, while simultaneously enabling monopolisation of commonplace language.
At the same time, the proliferation of counterfeit and confusingly similar goods, particularly through digital marketplaces, undermines the very function of trademarks as indicators of origin. The result is an erosion of consumer trust and a dilution of brand value, both of which strike at the core of trademark jurisprudence.
Indian courts have consistently recognised the gravity of this threat. In Nike Innovate C.V. v. Ashok Kumar, the Saket District Court, Delhi, found that the defendants were selling counterfeit goods bearing the “NIKE” mark and the Swoosh logo, and granted a permanent injunction and damages in favour of Nike. Although the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not explicitly define “counterfeiting,” such conduct clearly falls within the statutory framework of infringement, passing off, and dilution.
Consumer Perception: Informed Choice or Engineered Confusion?
Social media and influencer marketing have dramatically reshaped consumer behaviour. Dupes and look-alikes are often portrayed as savvy, cost-effective substitutes for luxury products, normalising the idea that imitation is an acceptable alternative to originality.
Yet, this narrative masks deeper consequences. Widespread duping erodes the aura of exclusivity traditionally associated with luxury brands and gradually weakens the symbolic premium that justifies higher price points. Over time, this can destabilise the economic foundations of creative industries that rely on brand differentiation and perceived scarcity.
Affordability undeniably plays a role. Luxury products remain inaccessible to large segments of the population, and dupes appear to democratise fashion. However, from a legal and policy standpoint, this cannot justify systematic appropriation of another’s commercial identity.
The Grey Zone of “Inspired By”: When Does Inspiration Become Infringement?
Creative inspiration is intrinsic to fashion. Designers routinely draw from historical styles, cultural motifs, and prevailing trends. The legal line is crossed, however, when inspiration gives way to substantial imitation.
Courts typically assess this through a comparative analysis of the overall impression created by competing products, rather than minute differences in individual elements. If the resemblance is such that an average consumer is likely to be confused, infringement may be established even in the absence of exact replication.
This assessment is inherently fact-specific and often unpredictable. Nevertheless, the guiding principle remains constant: appropriation of distinctive brand elements in a manner that trades upon another’s goodwill is impermissible.
Rethinking Remedies: Injunctions, Damages and Proportionality
Traditional remedies in trademark disputes, injunctions, and damages continue to play a central role. However, the scale and velocity of modern counterfeiting networks demand more robust judicial tools.
Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, have progressively embraced dynamic and rolling injunctions that extend beyond named defendants to cover unidentified infringers operating through online platforms. This jurisprudential shift acknowledges that static, defendant-specific orders are inadequate in an era of rapidly morphing digital piracy.
For fashion and luxury brands, such remedies are indispensable. Trade dress, brand identity, and exclusivity constitute the core of commercial value in this sector. Effective enforcement must therefore be swift, scalable, and deterrent in nature.
Conclusion
The battle against counterfeits, look-alikes, and dupes is not merely about protecting individual brands; it is about preserving the integrity of the trademark system itself. As fashion continues to converge with digital commerce and social media culture, trademark law must evolve in tandem.
A recalibrated enforcement ecosystem combining strong judicial remedies, proactive brand protection strategies, and policy-level clarity on emerging forms of imitation is essential. Only then can the law meaningfully respond to the complex realities of modern fashion commerce.
Contributor: Yashica Dhawan
