Fashion inspiration videos have become a staple on TikTok and Instagram, with influencers regularly recommending the latest trends and must-have products to their audiences. While many influencers feature luxury brands on their platforms, these products are often inaccessible to their followers. As a result, a growing amount of content has emerged where creators feature affordable alternatives, otherwise known as “dupes,” that capture the look or style of high-end fashion at a fraction of the cost.
Although consumers often use the terms “dupe” and “fake” interchangeably, these are not the same. This distinction is important because they have different legal implications. A key question is the line between inspiration from luxury products and the infringement of a brand’s intellectual property rights.
A dupe of a product is one that is inspired by another but sold under a different brand, often for a lower price. For instance, Steve Madden sells sandals with a cut-out design and material like Hermès Oran sandals; however, these retail for $100 CAD compared to $1,100 CAD for the original.
Meanwhile, a “fake” or counterfeit product is one that copies another brand's trademark or branding with the intention of deceiving others into believing it is authentic. For example, a sandal that displays the Hermès name or logo and is marketed as a genuine Hermès product would be considered a counterfeit.
Why does this distinction matter? Although a dupe may resemble a product, it may not infringe on a brand's intellectual property (“IP”) rights. On the other hand, fakes usually violate these rights by misappropriating a brand’s protected name, logo, or design to mislead consumers into purchasing a product.
In Canada, IP law protects creations of the mind, including artistic works, products, and inventions through legal instruments such as trademark, industrial design and copyright. Trademarks protect brand names, logos, and other brand identifiers. Industrial design rights protect visual elements such as a product's shape or pattern, while copyright protects original artistic works including prints and graphics.
As a result, not every lookalike product infringes IP rights and gives rise to legal liability. Whether a dupe is legal depends on the elements of the original product that have been replicated and whether those features are protected by IP rights.
A recent example is the dispute between Adidas and designer Thom Browne. Adidas maintained that Thom Browne’s use of four parallel stripes on clothing and footwear infringed on Adidas’s famous three stripe design. Thom Browne responded that stripes are a common design element and that the brands operate in two different markets, with Thom Browne focusing on luxury tailoring while Adidas focuses on athletic wear. The jury found in favor of Thom Browne, concluding that consumers were unlikely to confuse the two brands. This case demonstrates that similarity between products alone does not amount to IP infringement; courts also consider whether the alleged infringement is likely to cause customer confusion.
Social media plays an interesting role in the IP discourse, as platforms like TikTok and Instagram have created a space of dupe-focused content, where influencers regularly showcase and compare “the best dupes” of luxury products. These posts often include direct links, allowing viewers to purchase the alternatives showcased on websites such as Amazon and other fast-fashion retailers. This allows both influencers and brands to profit from directing consumers toward low-cost versions of higher-end items. This ecosystem has increased the visibility of dupes while creating opportunities for monetization.
Dupe content was especially popular during the “quiet luxury” trend, which gained visibility in 2023-2024 and refers to understated, high-quality fashion items without visible logos or branding. The popularity of this aesthetic highlighted barriers associated with luxury goods; this contributed to the circulation of more affordable alternatives via social media influencers.
An additional issue arises where individuals explicitly market dupes by referencing luxury brands in advertising, for example describing an item as “the perfect X dupe.” While comparative advertising may be permitted, the use of another brand’s trademark can raise legal liability.
While “dupes” and “fakes” are often grouped together in discourse, they are treated differently under IP law. Dupes may be lawful; however, not all lookalike products are treated equally, as this depends on which elements have been replicated and whether these are protected. This distinction is increasingly important in a space shaped by social media and viral trends.