If authenticity never goes out of style, imitation is clearly having a moment. With thousands of posts tagged #dupe on Instagram, “dupe culture” has become a defining feature of modern consumer behaviour, reshaping expectations around price, accessibility and desirability. 

Derived from “duplicate,” the term “dupe” broadly refers to products that imitate or strongly draw inspiration from existing - often high-end - goods, without necessarily reproducing their trade mark or logo, and which are sold at significantly lower prices. It is a marketing-driven concept rather than a settled legal category, covering both look-alike products and those claiming equivalent performance or function. While not new, the phenomenon has expanded rapidly across industries, fueled by social media and influencer-driven promotion.

Contrary to a widespread belief, the absence of trade mark reproduction does not automatically render such practices lawful. Against this backdrop, the rise of dupes creates concrete legal exposure, prompting companies to reassess the tools available under French law to address and contain their proliferation.

IP rights : the first line of defence 

Intellectual property rights remain the primary legal lever to act against “dupes”. Brand owners can rely on a combination of trade marks (including figurative, position and 3D marks), registered or unregistered designs, and copyright. 

Recent French case law illustrates the effectiveness of this toolkit.

In a 7 February 2025 decision, the Paris Judicial Court (Paris Judicial Court, February 7 2025, n° 22/09210) upheld Hermès’s claims concerning its iconic Kelly and Birkin bags against a third party’s mid-market bag. The Court confirmed that the bags were eligible for copyright protection as original works reflecting free and creative choices. Applying the traditional copyright test, it found that similarities outweighed differences between the products at issue, and held that infringement was established, notwithstanding significant price disparities.

Likewise, in its 15 April 2022 judgment, the Paris Judicial Court (Paris Judicial Court, April 15 2022, n°21/04382) recognized the reputation of Lindt’s “LINDT GOLDHASE” 3D EU trade mark and ruled that Lidl’s chocolate rabbits - sharing key visual features - took unfair advantage of that reputation under Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, even absent a likelihood of confusion. Lidl was ordered to cease sales and pay € 250,000 for dilution.

However, IP rights are not without limits. Protection cannot extend to features dictated solely by technical function or the natural form of the product. This constraint is particularly relevant for 3D trade marks and registered designs. 

In a decision of 28 January 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal (Paris Court of Appeal, 28 January 2022, n°20/04831) held that no infringement of a registered EU design could be established, where the similarities between two snorkelling masks were exclusively technical in nature.

Finally, certain subject matter remains outside the scope of protection altogether. Under established French case law (French Supreme Court, 13 June 2006, n° 02-44.718), fragrances are not eligible for copyright protection, as they do not constitute works of the mind expressed in an identifiable form.

Free riding (Parasitisme) : a strategic complement

Where intellectual property claims prove uncertain or unavailable, brands can pivot to an action for free riding (parasitisme) - a flexible yet demanding tool under French law. 

This route is not a shortcut: courts consistently require a twofold showing - first, the existence of an individualised economic value and second, the intent to ride on the coattails of that value. In practice, French litigation outcomes frequently hinge on the ability to evidence the former.

In the Chanel v. Jonak decision (Paris Court of Appeal, 16 October 2024, n° 22/19513), Chanel successfully demonstrated the individualised economic value of its iconic slingbacks through a dense evidentiary record: archival catalogues dating back to the 1950s, decades of press coverage and runway visibility, product line continuity, consumer perception surveys, and certified marketing investments. The court also relied on converging indicators of parasitic intent, including striking visual similarities, product line mimicry, and telling consumer comments explicitly framing Jonak’s products as “Chanel alternatives.” The result: a finding of dilution and banalisation, with damages awarded. See our BrandWrites article on this case here.

A similar logic prevailed in Guerlain v. Paris Diffusion (Paris Court of Appeal, 20 Sept. 2023, n° 21/19365), where sustained advertising investments, strong brand association, and deliberate aesthetic borrowing supported a finding that the defendant had achieved substantial savings and unfair image transfer by free riding on Guerlain’s efforts.

By contrast, the IRO v. Mango case (Versailles Court of Appeal, 10 September 2025,n°23/05890) illustrates the limits of the action. Despite invoking significant overall marketing spend, IRO failed to isolate and substantiate investments tied to the specific product and colourway at issue. Aggregated figures, limited promotional focus, and the absence of enduring market presence proved fatal. Without clear, product-specific evidence of economic value, the court did not even examine parasitic intent.

Free riding claims can be effective, but only when supported by precise, product-specific evidence. 

Dupes and advertising law : a double-edged sword

If free riding addresses conduct after the fact, advertising law operates upstream. While “dupe” may seem descriptive, it is not legally neutral. 

Under the French Consumer law, a product marketed as a “dupe” may qualify as a misleading commercial practice if it falsely suggests equivalence in quality, composition or performance. Articles L. 121-2 and L. 121-3 prohibit both deceptive claims and omissions of material information – such as failing to disclose a paid partnership. Accordingly, influencers and brands promoting “dupes” without adequate transparency - or overstating similarity - face tangible legal risk.

Sanctions are significant: misleading practices can lead to criminal penalties (up to 2 years’ imprisonment and a € 300,000 EUR fine, potentially increased), in addition to civil and reputational consequences. 

Beyond misleading practices, “dupe” claims may also amount to comparative advertising under the Directive 2006/114/EC. As clarified in L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV (CJUE, n°C-487/07), such comparisons must comply with a series of cumulative conditions, among which objectiveness, non-misleading character, and not taking unfair advantage of a competitor’s reputation.

Key takeaways

Contrary to popular belief, dupe products are not a legal grey zone in France: multiple legal frameworks - IP, unfair competition, and advertising law - provide actionable grounds for enforcement.

However, success depends on evidentiary precision and strategic positioning, particularly where IP rights are limited. 

Brands should adopt a coordinated approach, combining ex ante control (advertising compliance) with ex post enforcement (IP and parasitisme claims).