Dupes – a shortened form of the English word duplicate – are ubiquitous on social media. On Instagram, for instance, one beauty enthusiast regularly showcases lower-cost alternatives to products from makeup artist Charlotte Tilbury’s eponymous brand, claiming that these substitutes have led her to "stop buying the originals." Meanwhile, Reddit is awash with discussions from users seeking affordable equivalents to premium beauty products. "If I really like the dupe, I’ll buy the original," one commenter writes.
This phenomenon is nothing like the counterfeit goods that were sold under the table, or sometimes more openly in certain markets. It’s becoming increasingly institutionalized, attracting the attention of investors. One example is Dossier, the U.S.-based fragrance company that markets perfumes as being "inspired by" luxury scents. In April, it was acquired by American Pacific Group from Otium Capital.
Dupes are no longer confined to online marketplaces; they are now widely available in brick-and-mortar European retailers such as Lidl and Action. On its website, Action promotes fragrances "inspired by popular perfumes," while countless online comparisons draw parallels between luxury scents and their low-cost counterparts. One frequently cited example presents Oh Belle Femme by Capace as the equivalent of La vie est belle by Lancôme. The price difference is striking: less than EUR 3 for a 100 ml bottle, compared with EUR 149 for the original eau de parfum.
Some companies embrace the terminology even more openly. On its website, Inspire explicitly uses the term "dupe" to market its products. Inspire 103, for example, is described as a "dupe" of Baccarat Rouge 540, the iconic fragrance created by Francis Kurkdjian, while being sold at a fraction of the original’s price.
“Today, imitation has become fully normalized. There is no longer any sense of guilt attached to it; it is no longer viewed as a moral issue,” says Benoît Heilbrunn, professor of marketing at ESCP Business School. In his view, the rise of dupes represents “a challenge to the very foundations of the brand economy.” Consumers, he argues, are increasingly embracing the idea that “I don’t necessarily want the authentic product, I want something that looks and feels like it.” As a result, “our relationship with imitation and copies has been fundamentally transformed.”
“New generation of counterfeits”
“The manufacturers of these dupes portray themselves as offering consumers access to perfumes at a fair price, cultivating a kind of white-knight image. But that narrative is misleading,” argues Guillaume Teulé, co-founder of Hélius Paris.
According to Teulé, the economics of fragrance production are more complex than dupe brands suggest. “For a perfume that retails at EUR 100, around EUR 60 goes to the retailer in margins and operating costs. Of the EUR 40 that remains for the manufacturer, at least 30% is typically invested in marketing and advertising,” he explains. Dupe producers, by contrast, operate under a very different model. “They have little or no marketing expenditure, sell directly to consumers, and avoid the costly process of developing multiple fragrances in the hope that one becomes a commercial success,” he says. He also points to differences in formulation.
Franck Besnard, head of Estée Lauder France, shares that view. “Dupes are a new generation of counterfeits—counterfeiting 2.0,” he says. “They pose a threat to the image, creativity, and expertise that underpin the global fragrance industry.”
FEBEA, the French trade organization gathering beauty companies, is closely monitoring the rise of dupes with several legal actions underway. According to Xavier Guéant, the federation’s director of legal affairs, the phenomenon has been amplified by the combined influence of social media and global e-commerce platforms. Yet, he argues, the issue extends far beyond questions of intellectual property and trademark infringement. “Many of these products are sold at extremely low prices and are marketed with little regard for the health, safety, and regulatory standards that apply in Europe.”
Brands are not without legal remedies, notes Boriana Guimberteau, a partner at Stephenson Harwood. “They can rely on intellectual property protections, including design rights and copyright, but also pursue claims based on unfair competition and economic parasitism,” she explains.
Whether these tools are sufficient remains an open question. “There is also a need for greater involvement from public authorities,” argues Xavier Guéant.
In many respects, the issue resembles that of so-called concordance tables — lists that explicitly match lower-cost alternatives to branded products — which have traditionally been challenged in France under the doctrine of commercial parasitism. Such practices, however, have historically attracted less legal scrutiny in many other jurisdictions, highlighting the difficulties of addressing the dupe phenomenon in an increasingly global marketplace.
