It is interesting to see how the dupe debate continues to evolve in the beauty sector.
In this recent US lawsuit, Glow Recipe’s expanded claim against MCoBeauty (now also naming Target) signals a more sophisticated approach to brand protection and enforcement.
Rather than focusing purely on product name and packaging similarities, the case targets the full commercial ecosystem behind dupes, spanning keyword advertising, social media, product listings, and retailer-driven discovery - all of which guide how consumers discover and compare products.
What stands out is the focus on how consumers engage with and find these products, and the shift in how brands are approaching dupe-related disputes. The argument moves beyond point-of-sale confusion and the overall look and feel of the products in question, to how consumers found the product in the first place.
I find it interesting (and also super relevant) that this case considers how dupe products are referenced, marketed and discovered by consumers through broader merchandising practices. This is particularly relevant in dupe cases, where consumers are not necessarily confused at the point of sale, but instead, the importance is placed on consumers understanding exactly which product is being imitated.
This case also reflects a broader shift we’re seeing, where brand owners are seeking to protect not just their IP, but the wider commercial value chain that surrounds it. This will be one to watch closely, particularly for brand owners and retailers navigating dupe strategies and digital merchandising.
To learn more about developing an effective anti-counterfeiting strategy, please read our guide: Brand security in a modern world.
Glow Recipe alleges that MCoBeauty and Target used a combination of product imagery, dupe-focused marketing, search advertising, social media content, retailer product listings, and search optimization practices to “call to mind in consumers Glow Recipe” and “usurp Glow Recipe’s goodwill and reputation.”

