In 2021, UK actress Annaliese Dayes took to TikTok to promote her purchase of a “House of Sunny dupe”, the video went viral amassing over 767,000 views with over 170,000 likes. Dupe culture has become mainstream.

By giving a morally wrong act a cute playful name, the associated problematic issues are downplayed and often overlooked. This article looks at why so-called “Dupe Culture” may be more harmful to the general public than is suggested on social media. 

We explore the social media influencer-led phenomenon of dupe culture, and how brand owners can protect themselves from parasitic products.

What is dupe culture?

Dupe culture or “Dupes” refer to duplicate products of hi-end fashion brands, typically sold at a fraction of the original.  

Buying replica goods has become normalised, in large by online influencers glamorising their knockoff wares. Dupe culture has flipped what was once a taboo into mass market appeal, generating vast revenues from advertisements and referral links. 

Given the increased acceptance of lookalike products coexisting with branded goods, the floodgates are now open to the moral acceptance of trade mark infringement amongst the general public. We are surely one step away from what would be a much bigger problem for brand owners – mainstream acceptance of counterfeit goods.

The dangers of dupes

The question faced by brand owners today is, how they can protect their creativity and expense in getting innovative products to market?   

Counterfeit and knockoff products don’t incur the costs of product design, testing, or marketing. The business model is ‘that’s a successful product but I’m sure you’ll like this one for a fraction of the price’. Based on the popularity of dupe culture adjacent content which reviews cheap products from Temu, AliExpress etc. it is clear consumers usually get what they pay for. Aside from poor quality, there are many other harms to consider:

• Has the product undergone the same rigorous testing?
• Does the product match what was advertised online?
• Will the product last more than a single wash?
• Will the product give me a rash?
• What were the labour conditions needed to manufacture the product at the retail price? Someone somewhere along the supply chain pays the price for the unbelievably low price of dupes.

 So yes, it’s cheaper, but does cheaper mean good? We think not.

Reputational harm

As discussed in the Stobbs-commissioned report on The Psychology of Lookalikes; it is a human instinct to immediately trust a product based on earlier recollection of another product. Those creating dupes play on these tendencies in human nature to reel in the customer based on their engrained perceptions.

The very essence of trade mark law originated in preventing one person from riding on the coattails of another. In my view, what was once an immoral practice - the sale of counterfeit and replica goods - has become a movement. Accepting dupe culture now brings a sense of pride. This is a worry for brand owners. 

The reality is that social media influencers are being paid by wholesalers of replica products to advertise these goods to a global market. This new shift to use influencers to impact the behaviour of society increases the scale of the anti-counterfeiting problem for brand owners and over time may even make it an acceptable norm.

What can be done?

Stobbs is leading the legal battle against lookalikes. There are steps brand owners can implement to protect themselves against dupes and legal recourse against infringement.

However, some brands are using other creative methods to combat knockoffs. For example, increasing public awareness about the negative consequences and encouraging consumers to make informed choices.

Lululemon hosted a “dupe swap”. The event allowed owners of dupe "Lululemon” leggings to swap their replica products for the real deal. The idea being, once consumers tried the authentic leggings, they would appreciate that genuine products cannot truly be replicated.

From a brand protection perspective, Lululemon managed to remove a number of dupes from the market. This raised their brand profile and demonstrated their confidence in the quality of their products, whilst publicly warning consumers about the inferior quality of the associated dupes. This one-time event will of course not eliminate the dupe problem faced by Lululemon entirely, but the brand has been praised and it garnered positive press awareness off the back of the issue. This in turn will progressively increase brand presence and will reduce the effect of the problem.

It is therefore time to lift the lid on this illicit enterprise disguised as a harmless viral trend. The practice of dupe culture not only freerides on the back of successful brands, but also dupes consumers into buying a subpar product pushed by influencers which in reality only serves their own financial gain.