That does not mean that brand owners are entirely without recourse when they are ripped off, though. Moreover, brand owners certainly cannot initiate trademark proceedings over a rival’s use of descriptive terms, such as “nude,” “highlight,” or “shine” - which are some of most commonly used cosmetics terms. Legally acceptable dupes are not uncommon since neither the design of standard makeup palettes, for example, nor the idea of a tube of lipstick or a generic pink blush are protected by law. In many cases, dupes are legally on the up-and-up, as long as the elements of the original products are not protectable and/or the replicated products do not cross the line between inspiration and infringement. As such, the question is: are dupes legal? Wet n Wild’s palette The concerns of brands when it comes to these replica products – including their potential inability to recoup of R&D costs by way of sales as a result of such lower priced alternatives, and the risk that consumers may be confused as to the source of a dupe, particularly when a product’s packaging is knocked off – paired with the ethical issues that come hand-in-hand with copying, which are often raised by consumers in light of a larger call-out culture, raise questions about the legality of the widespread practice of beauty product duping.

There are even dupe-specific Instagram accounts, such as which provides its 1.2 million followers with dupes of makeup, haircare, skincare and other beauty-related products. Mass-market beauty brands, capitalizing on consumer enthusiasm for affordable cosmetics and beauty goods, are offering products with the same characteristics or qualities as the popular products of their higher-end counterparts – from less expensive versions of Glossier’s hot-selling Boy Brow grooming pomade to copycat takes on Drunk Elephant’s C-Firma Day Serum.Īll the while, the dupes phenomenon has spawned a seemingly countless amount of blog posts and YouTube videos comparing products from brands like Glossier, Nars, and Yves Saint Laurent to similar ones from more budget-friendly brands, such as Revlon, Maybelline and E.L.F. Just as in the fashion industry, where the replication of higher-priced brands’ wares is an industry all of its own, the beauty market is becoming increasingly rife with “dupes.” Far from a little-known practice, dupes – or cheaper alternatives to higher-end beauty products – have become a mainstay of the $532 billion beauty industry. According to tweets that Charles posted over the weekend, drug store beauty brand Wet n Wild copied “the exact shades and layout” from the $39 James Charles Palette he launched last year with beauty brand Morphe for its new 40 Palette – a reference to the 40 different shades of eyeshadow that are included in the palette, one more than James own 39-shade offering.Ģ0-year old Charles, who first made his name by way of his YouTube channel, stated that “there are only so many colors you can put into an eyeshadow palette” and noted that he is “not claiming to ‘own’ specific colors.” Yet, due to the unmistakable similarities at play, it is clear that Los Angeles-based Wet n Wild copied his palette, he argued.Īccording to CNN, the 40-year old affordable beauty brand “responded to copycat complaints by pointing to a common beauty industry practice known as dupes - cheaper, comparable alternatives to more expensive makeup.”

Beauty influencer James Charles has called out Wet n Wild for allegedly copying his eponymous eyeshadow palette by way of one of its own soon-to-launch products.

Wet n wild coffee buzz dupe