Noel Deyzel’s account suspension reignites debate over fragrance dupes

Noel Deyzel’s fragrance-focused Instagram and TikTok accounts, which had 1.2 million and 1.8 million followers, respectively, were suspended following actions that the influencer attributed to German fragrance distributor Nobilis Group. The dispute reportedly followed videos comparing fragrances from luxury houses such as Creed and Amouage with less expensive alternatives.

Deyzel, also known as Noel Smells, denounced the suspension as an infringement of his “freedom of expression.” The case has prompted other fragrance creators to report similar account restrictions, which they have also linked to complaints by Nobilis Group. Some have called for a boycott of the brands distributed by the company, while others have shared an image bearing the message: “I Stand with Noel. An honest review is not IP violation.”

After launching a backup account, @noeldeyzelfragrance2.0, and appealing the suspension, Deyzel has regained access to his accounts. However, the reinstatement has done little to quell the controversy, which has raised broader questions within the fragrance community.

Protecting fragrance creations

In a LinkedIn post, Nobilis Group co-owner and CEO Udo Heuser rejected accusations that the company was deliberately targeting creators or seeking to have their accounts suspended. “We only report legal violations,” he explained.

Heuser said the company takes action specifically against what is considered unlawful comparative advertising under the German and EU legislations, arguing that imitation fragrances repeatedly attack the original brands Nobilis represents.

The dispute highlights a complex legal issue. While fragrances inspired by existing products are not automatically illegal, the way they are marketed and compared with established brands can raise intellectual property and advertising-law issues. European case law, notably the Court of Justice of the European Union’s L’Oréal v Bellure ruling of 18 June 2009, has addressed the use of luxury brand names to promote imitation products and partly settled the issue.

Where does independent reviewing end?

The controversy raises a broader question for the fragrance industry: how can platforms and rights holders distinguish legitimate consumer commentary from commercial promotion of dupes?

An independent reviewer comparing two fragrances may be providing useful information to consumers. However, content that promotes an imitation product by explicitly associating it with a luxury fragrance can raise several legal questions, particularly when the comparison forms part of a commercial campaign.

Indeed, a major undercurrent of the backlash is that many "dupe" fragrance houses heavily sponsor influencers to say their $30 clone smells "identical to" or "better than" a $400 niche perfume. Luxury brands argue that such content crosses the line between independent commentary and misleading commercial advertising by leveraging their trademarks without authorization. In many jurisdictions, legislation and case law support their position.

The restoration of Deyzel’s accounts has not, in itself, resolved these underlying issues. The case illustrates the ongoing challenge of balancing intellectual property protection, commercial competition and independent product criticism in the social media era.