When Does 'Inspiration' Cross The Line To Infringement

The beauty and consumer products industries have seen a rise in so-called "dupes" – products that closely imitate the look and feel of well-known, often more expensive brands. The surge in "dupes" in the marketplace has led to a wave of legal disputes, as brand owners seek to protect their intellectual property from what they view as unfair exploitation. At the heart of the debate lies the question: when does inspiration cross the line into infringement?

The legal landscape surrounding dupes is nuanced and evolving. Courts must balance the value of competition and affordability for consumers with the rights of brands to safeguard their market position and reputation. Like parody, dupes are oxymoronic: they, by name, duplicate an existing product, yet often call attention to their own duplicity. As the purpose of the Lanham Act is to ensure that consumers are not confused when making purchasing decisions, whether a product touted as a "dupe" is considered an infringement has sparked a series of legal disputes as established brands seek to defend their intellectual property and the junior user claims that there is no lability because consumers understand that they are not purchasing the senior user's product. This article provides a high level overview of some recent cases addressing dupes and then sets forth some takeaway points for industry players on both sides of the aisle.

In Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc., Benefit alleged that e.l.f.'s LASH 'N ROLL mascara infringed on its ROLLER LASH trademark and mascara packaging trade dress. See Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc., No. 23-cv-00861, 2024 WL 5135604 (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Source: Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 48, ECF No. 1, Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. E.L.F.. Cosmetics, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-00861.

While both parties' products featured similar black-pink packaging and names, the court ultimately found no likelihood of confusion. Some factors given weight in this decision were:

Intent: Internal correspondence at e.l.f. revealed no intent to deceive consumers, but rather an acknowledgment of inspiration and an aim to "cue" customers.