Last updated: July 2026
Are beauty dupes legal? Usually, yes. Selling a product that looks or smells similar to a famous one is lawful in the United States as long as the seller avoids copying protected trademarks, distinctive packaging trade dress, and copyrighted artwork, and does not make false comparative claims. Dupes cross the line when they confuse consumers about source or mislead them about performance.
The award-winning scent. One of the most powerful beauty brands of the moment. Sephora’s biggest-ever body care seller. Sol de Janeiro built its identity around the promise of an endless Brazilian summer: sun-drenched colour palettes, beach-ready packaging, and fragrance names that evoke warmth, self-love and joy. But as the temperature rises in the beauty market, so does the legal tension, and the brand’s carefully curated “summer” now sits at the centre of one of the most closely watched dupe disputes in the industry. This page tracks that case and serves as a hub for the wider legal questions around beauty dupes: when imitation is lawful, when it becomes infringement, and what beauty brands can actually protect.
What Is Happening in the Sol de Janeiro v. MCoBeauty Lawsuit?
On 25 November, Sol de Janeiro filed a newly amended complaint and jury demand in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, bringing claims against MCoBeauty, an Australian beauty brand, for false advertising, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER, Amended Complaint and Jury Demand]
Sol de Janeiro first sued MCoBeauty in November 2024, alleging that, to seize on the popularity of Sol de Janeiro’s Cheirosa Perfume Mists, MCoBeauty created a line of cheap knockoffs. The original complaint targeted MCoBeauty Fragrance Mists No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4, which Sol de Janeiro alleged clearly mimic the look and feel of its beloved fragrances. In response, MCoBeauty invoked a range of affirmative defences in June, maintaining that its marketing and product practices constituted fair use rather than false advertising. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER, Defendant MCoBeauty Pty Ltd’s Answer and Affirmative Defences]
The amended complaint broadens the dispute. Sol de Janeiro claims that MCoBeauty has continued to expand its fragrance line since the initial filing, introducing Fragrance Mists No. 0, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7, which allegedly infringe in the same way. The case now covers a total of eight accused products, underscoring the escalating nature of the fight.
How Is Sol de Janeiro Framing Its False Advertising Claims?
According to Sol de Janeiro, MCoBeauty actively publishes, endorses, sponsors, and highlights the accused mists across its website and social media, positioning them as alternatives to seven of Sol de Janeiro’s most popular mist lines. The false advertising claims lean heavily on influencer-led marketing. The complaint alleges that, beginning in February 2024, MCoBeauty promoted its fragrance mists on YouTube through influencer testimonial videos, including a side-by-side comparison of MCoBeauty Fragrance Mist No. 1 and Sol de Janeiro’s Cheirosa Perfume Mist 40. In that video, the influencer allegedly said the MCoBeauty product “smells exactly” like Cheirosa 40, “lasts most, if not all day long”, and “holds better” than the Sol de Janeiro fragrance. A similar incident occurred in June 2024, when another influencer made comparable claims in an Instagram post showing MCoBeauty No. 2 next to Cheirosa 62.
Sol de Janeiro argues these statements are false and misleading: the MCoBeauty products are made from different ingredients, do not present the same fragrances or smell, and dissipate more quickly. The complaint further emphasises that federal regulations place the burden of monitoring and correcting misleading claims on brands. Rather than taking corrective action, Sol de Janeiro alleges, MCoBeauty engaged directly with the Instagram post and continues to host customer reviews on its website describing the products as dupes, contributing to the spread of unsubstantiated comparative claims.
What Is the Trade Dress Theory in the Case?
Sol de Janeiro claims that its Cheirosa Body Mists have a distinctive, unique look that immediately identifies the source of the product to consumers. That appearance, the brand says, is non-functional and solely associated with the company. Sol de Janeiro asserts trade dress rights in the combination of its signature bottle, cap, and label, including its unique selection and arrangement of elements, text, and graphics, and it owns numerous registered and pending trademark applications worldwide. The complaint alleges that the colouring, packaging, bottling, labelling, and presentation of the MCoBeauty products were intended to infringe and unfairly copy that trade dress.
When Is a Beauty Dupe Legal and When Is It Infringing?
A dupe is a product designed to replicate the look and feel of another, typically higher-priced item without copying its exact branding or directly violating intellectual property rights. Unlike counterfeits, which mislead consumers by replicating logos and trademarks, dupes occupy a legal grey area built on aesthetic similarity rather than brand identity. Fashion Law Journal has covered this distinction in depth in its articles on the rise of dupe culture in fashion and on dupes versus counterfeits, and the Sol de Janeiro case is the beauty industry’s clearest test of where that grey area ends. Three bodies of US law do most of the work:
- Trademark law. A dupe infringes if it uses a name, logo, or other source identifier that is likely to confuse consumers about who makes the product. Naming a mist “No. 1” is not the same as calling it “Cheirosa”, which is why most dupe brands avoid the original’s word marks entirely.
- Trade dress law. Packaging can itself function as a trademark. The US Supreme Court held in Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992) that inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable without proof of secondary meaning, while Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. (2000) held that product design is protectable only once consumers associate it with a single source. Under TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001), functional features can never be monopolised as trade dress. A dupe that copies a distinctive, non-functional bottle-cap-label combination closely enough to confuse shoppers is exposed.
- False advertising law. Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, comparative claims must be truthful and substantiated. “Smells exactly like” and “lasts longer than” are testable factual assertions; if they are false, the dupe seller faces liability even where the packaging itself is lawful.
Copyright plays a narrower role. Label artwork, graphics, and original packaging illustrations can be protected as works of authorship, but copyright does not cover a cosmetic formula or a scent. Notably, a 2019 English High Court decision found that the embossed design on a Charlotte Tilbury powder was protected by copyright and infringed by an Aldi lookalike, showing that in some jurisdictions even the decorated surface of the product itself can be off limits.
What Parts of a Beauty Product Can Actually Be Protected?
| Product aspect | Can it be protected in the US? | How |
|---|---|---|
| Formula | Yes, but not against reverse engineering | Trade secret protection if kept confidential; patents are possible for genuinely novel compositions but publish the recipe |
| Scent | Generally no | The Copyright Office does not register scents, and a fragrance’s smell is functional for a perfume, so trademark registration is unavailable for it; scent marks exist only for products where the smell is non-functional, as with the plumeria-scented yarn in In re Clarke (TTAB 1990). Fragrance houses rely on trade secrecy instead |
| Packaging | Yes | Trade dress under the Lanham Act for distinctive, non-functional bottle, cap, and label combinations; design patents for new ornamental container designs; copyright for label artwork; even a single colour can be registered with secondary meaning under Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995) |
| Name | Yes | Trademark registration for brand and product names; the strongest and cheapest protection a beauty brand owns |
The table explains the shape of dupe culture. Because the scent and the formula are largely free to imitate, the legal battle is fought almost entirely over packaging and marketing claims, which is exactly where Sol de Janeiro has aimed its complaint.
Why Are Dupes Booming on TikTok?
The rapid rise of copycat culture reflected in the Sol de Janeiro complaint is closely linked to the social media-driven democratisation of fashion and beauty. TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube have evolved into powerful trend accelerators, where influencer endorsements and viral content quickly normalise dupe recommendations among potential buyers. The dupe hashtag has accumulated billions of views on TikTok, and for many younger consumers, finding a convincing dupe is not embarrassing but a badge of savvy shopping. That cultural shift matters legally: influencer videos and comment-section claims are now pleaded as evidence, as the Sol de Janeiro complaint shows, and a brand’s decision to amplify or ignore user-generated “smells identical” claims can itself become part of a false advertising case.
How Are Brands Responding to Dupe Culture?
Responses fall along a spectrum. At one end, e.l.f. Beauty has built an openly dupe-forward business, releasing affordable products that shoppers and the press routinely compare to prestige hits, such as its Halo Glow liquid filter, widely discussed as an alternative to Charlotte Tilbury’s Flawless Filter, while staying clear of prestige brands’ names and distinctive packaging. The strategy shows that a dupe business can be run lawfully when it trades on price and self-branding rather than confusion.
At the other end sits aggressive enforcement. Sol de Janeiro’s suit against MCoBeauty is one example; another is lululemon’s 2025 lawsuit against Costco over alleged dupes of its apparel, which signalled that trade dress and design rights are being asserted against mass retailers, not only small copycats. Luxury fragrance and skincare houses increasingly combine litigation with prevention: registering packaging trade dress, filing design patents on containers, locking formulas behind trade secret programmes, and using influencer contracts to control comparative claims. Some brands also lean into the attention, treating being duped as proof of icon status while quietly policing the imitations that come too close.
What Happens Next in the Sol de Janeiro Case?
The case is still ongoing, and no judicial decision has been made to date. Whatever the outcome, the complaint highlights the tension between the carefully curated aesthetics of market-leading companies and the rapidly growing ecosystem of imitations fuelled by social media, influencer marketing, and algorithm-driven consumption. As beauty and fashion trends accelerate and imitation becomes increasingly normalised, the Sol de Janeiro case is a timely reminder that while hype may be fleeting, brand identity remains a legal asset, one that, when pushed too far, can turn summer heat into courtroom fire.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are beauty dupes illegal to buy?
No. Buying a dupe is legal. The legal risk sits with sellers, and only when a dupe crosses into trademark or trade dress infringement, copies protected artwork, or is marketed with false comparative claims. Buying counterfeits, which copy logos and branding, is a different and riskier category.
Can a perfume smell be trademarked or copyrighted in the US?
Effectively no. The Copyright Office does not register scents, and because a fragrance’s smell is the functional essence of a perfume, it cannot serve as a trademark for that product. Scent marks have only been registered where the smell is incidental to the product, as with scented yarn in In re Clarke.
What is the difference between a dupe and a counterfeit?
A counterfeit copies a brand’s trademarks, logos, and packaging to pass itself off as the genuine article, which is illegal and often criminal. A dupe imitates the look, feel, or performance of a product while using its own brand name, which is generally lawful unless it confuses consumers or relies on false claims.
Why did Sol de Janeiro sue MCoBeauty instead of ignoring the dupes?
Because the alleged copying went beyond scent. Sol de Janeiro claims MCoBeauty imitated its distinctive bottle, cap, and label trade dress across eight products and amplified influencer claims that the mists smell identical and last longer, which the brand says are false. Trade dress rights also weaken if a brand fails to police lookalikes.
What should a beauty brand do to protect itself from dupes?
Register word marks and packaging trade dress early, consider design patents for distinctive containers, protect formulas as trade secrets, document consumer recognition of the packaging, monitor marketplaces and social platforms, and require substantiation clauses in influencer contracts so comparative claims can be controlled before they become evidence.
Author: Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém
Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém is a PhD candidate at the University of Miskolc, Deák Ferenc Doctoral School of Law. Her research focuses on Intellectual Property Law, particularly copyright originality in fashion products. Her academic interests also encompass trademarks, designs, and various aspects of Fashion Law. She obtained her law degree in 2022. Fashion is her passion, and in her free time, she loves reading, baking, traveling, and spending quality time with her family and friends.
FASHION LAW JOURNAL INSIDER
Join designers, brand founders and fashion lawyers who get the biggest brand battles, IP fights and career moves in fashion law, straight to their inbox.
