If you scroll through TikTok or Instagram even occasionally, you have definitely come across the concept of “dupes.” These are cheap alternatives to expensive products that promise “the same effect, but three times cheaper.” For years, major beauty brands turned a blind eye to the mass market copying their bestsellers. However, there is a limit to everything.
The famous cosmetics brand Sol de Janeiro (creators of the cult-classic Bum Bum Cream and fragrant Cheirosa mists) has filed a massive lawsuit against the Australian brand MCoBeauty, which made a name for itself specifically by releasing blatant “dupes.”
This case is unfolding in the Federal Court of New York and promises to become a historic precedent. It will finally answer the question: where does lawful “inspiration” end and blatant theft begin?
The Core of the Conflict: Coincidence or Copy-Paste?
MCoBeauty built its business model on openly offering budget alternatives to luxury cosmetics. But in the case of Sol de Janeiro, they seem to have decided not to hold back.
Sol de Janeiro accuses the Australians on two main counts:
-
Trade Dress Theft: The plaintiffs claim that MCoBeauty completely copied the visual code of their famous body mists. This includes the signature elongated cylindrical shape of the bottles, vibrant neon-summer plastic colors, chunky white caps, specific font placement, and the circular emblem in the center.
-
False Advertising: Initially, the dispute involved only four scents, but Sol de Janeiro later expanded the lawsuit to eight products. The brand’s lawyers point out that MCoBeauty doesn’t just copy the design, but also engages in aggressive marketing. They actively gather and publish reviews like “smells exactly like Sol de Janeiro,” while the brand’s official social media accounts actively “like” and repost videos from influencers featuring the hashtag #DupeAlert.
The Defense’s Position: “Just Trends and Subjective Opinions”
MCoBeauty’s representatives have no intention of giving up and have already filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Their arguments sound logical for the fast-consumerism era:
-
We are not misleading anyone: The brand claims their audience fully understands they are buying a cheaper alternative, so there is no “consumer confusion.”
-
The design is generic: According to MCoBeauty, the cylindrical bottle, white cap, and circular logo are basic, standard elements in the cosmetics industry that no one can monopolize.
-
This is free speech: Customer or blogger reviews claiming a cheap spray smells identical to an expensive one are subjective human opinions, not “false advertising” by the company.
Why Does This Case Matter to Everyone?
The beauty world is holding its breath waiting for the verdict. If the court rules in favor of Sol de Janeiro, it could dismantle the entire industry of copycat brands. Creating cheap copies of famous perfumes, creams, or eyeshadow palettes will become legally risky. Brands like MCoBeauty or Zara will no longer be able to release packaging that too closely resembles the original.
If MCoBeauty wins, it will legitimize “dupe culture” at a legal level. Budget cosmetics manufacturers will get a “green light” to copy almost anything, as long as they do not use the officially registered names of rival brands.
It looks like the era of consequence-free copying in the beauty industry is coming to an end, and store shelves might soon look very different.
Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.
