- “Dupe culture” is booming, driven by social media, normalising the rise of copycat brands
- 71% of Gen Z and 67% of Millennials regularly purchase imitation products
- From Starbucks to Luckin, coffee “wars” are intensifying with lawsuits over brand imitation
DUPE culture – short for “duplicate” – is disrupting retail, driven by cost-conscious Gen Z consumers, the thrill of discovery, and the joy of sharing affordable imitations.
This shift challenges brand equity and market positioning, forcing retailers to rethink how imitation products impact customer loyalty and brand perception.
The art of imitation has long been a staple of competitive industries, but the modern marketplace has seen an explosion of copycat products and brands, especially in sectors like luxury makeup, skincare, designer apparel, and even coffee.
Whether it’s mimicking a product with near-perfect precision, borrowing stylistic elements of branding, or even outright duplicating logos, the proliferation of parasitic brands has become a widespread phenomenon.
“This trend started with the rise of private labels and has now expanded, particularly with brands that ventured into non-traditional approaches within their categories,” says Fernando Arendar, Founder of Nitid Studio.
“By breaking new ground, these brands, such as Liquid Death or Graza (the olive oil brand), often become targets for imitation. Research shows that copycatting typically harms consumer trust and the perception of the brand doing the copying, especially when both brands belong to the same category.
However, when the imitation comes from a different category, such as a coffee brand adopting the branding style of a well-known food brand, it is often perceived as bold and innovative rather than unoriginal.”
In 2023, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) handled a record-high of nearly 6,200 domain name dispute cases, marking a 7% rise from 2022 and a 68% surge since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the coffee industry, brand imitation battles are not uncommon. In 2019, Thailand’s 50R Group registered Luckin Coffee’s trademark and opened several coffee shops mirroring Luckin’s design. The stores replicated everything from interior décor and logo design to coffee cups and bags, with the only difference being a flipped deer in the logo. Despite the striking similarities, Luckin pursued legal action but ultimately lost the case.
Bodum discovered in 2022 that Starbucks offered for sale the nearly identical French Press coffeemaker, taking them to court. Single serve coffee wars are another ongoing battle. Nestlé filed over 1,700 patents for the Nespresso single-pod system, and Keurig Green Mountain patented its K-Cup pods in 1992. But by 2012, expiring patents for both brands paved the way for competitors to enter the market with more affordable alternatives.
These practices, while undeniably clever, operate in a legal and ethical grey area that raises questions about fairness, creativity, and consumer trust.
Take, for instance, the proliferation of boutique coffee roasters with artisanal packaging: glossy kraft-paper bags, minimalist labels, and earthy, sustainable imagery. Some of these are original; others are copycats riding on the coattails of specialty coffee brands like Intelligentsia, for example, that spent years building their reputations.
Supermarket shelves, too, are rife with generic versions of high-end coffee products that look uncannily similar to their inspiration.
“It’s when counterfeits are purchased unknowingly that brand equity issues arise – people end up owning poor quality or dangerous goods that can ultimately affect the reputation of the infringed brand,” says Ellie Patel, Founder & CEO of Re-think Legal.
“It can also affect the ‘exclusivity of a brand,’ enabling the ‘wrong type’ of consumer. Burberry took a huge hit with counterfeit products back in the 00s with its scarves and accessories becoming more synonymous with football hooligans than the shopping elite due to counterfeits and it took the image of the brand years to recover.”
Why is this happening now? Economic pressure plays a significant role. As inflation affects consumer spending, cheaper alternatives become more appealing, with UK research showing that 64% of consumers are switching to cheaper brands. Brands looking to capture this value-conscious audience often find imitation an easier and faster route than innovation.
In many cases, copycats thrive due to a lack of enforceable regulations. Trademark laws and intellectual property rights offer some protection, but the global nature of modern commerce allows companies to sidestep restrictions.
This behaviour also reflects consumer psychology. Studies show that visual recognition plays a significant role in purchasing decisions. In a 2018 survey, 72% of American consumers stated that their purchase decisions were influenced by a product’s packaging design.
#DupeCulture – cheap alternative or creative theft?
Imitation as a business strategy is hardly new. Some of the most iconic rivalries in history have been fueled by mimicry.
Adidas and Puma, for instance, were founded by feuding brothers whose brands mirrored each other in everything from product design to marketing. Lamborghini, famously, started as a direct response to Ferrari’s dominance in luxury sports cars, adopting similar designs but targeting a different audience.
In the coffee world, this practice is increasingly common. Large commercial coffee brands often borrow the aesthetics of specialty coffee to appear more premium. Think of supermarket brands that adopt descriptions like “small-batch roasted,” or feature rustic typography and origin-focused narratives without the sourcing integrity to back it up.
Today, Gen Z’s focus on affordability and value is driving the surge in dupe culture, challenging traditional brand loyalty and forcing retailers to rethink how they offer value and exclusivity. Trending hashtags like #DupeAlert and #DupeCulture simplify the search for these budget-friendly alternatives.
According to eMarketer, around one-third of makeup consumers ages 18 to 34 (33%) and 25 to 34 (35%) bought a dupe due to something they saw on social media. And research reveals that 71% of Gen Z and 67% of Millennials report they sometimes or always buy dupes.
While older generations discreetly bought dupes to mimic the real thing, younger bargain-seekers openly embrace their finds, proudly sharing them with friends and followers – positioning imitation as a cool trend that democratises access to luxury normally reserved to the elite.
But not all imitation is created equal. Industry observers distinguish between inspiration and outright copying. Inspiration might mean adopting certain best practices, such as direct trade sourcing or eco-friendly packaging.
Copying, on the other hand, involves replicating branding, product design, or marketing strategies so closely that it misleads consumers. Consumers find it challenging to clearly distinguish between visually similar packaging of leader brands and copycat brands.
A 2022 study shows that when evaluating visually similar packaging, 43% of participants cited buying a copycat product when under the impression they were buying the market leader, and 39% of participants were likely to make a mistaken purchase based on the similarity in product names between the leader brand and the copycat brand.
“Beyond the ethical and legal considerations, brands need to ensure that their packaging and branding are distinct enough to prevent shoppers from associating their product with a competitor,” says Fernando.
“If the design is too similar, it often benefits the original brand more than the imitator. It’s essential to develop branding that stands out while clearly signalling the product category to avoid causing confusion or cognitive overload. When shoppers struggle to identify what a product is, they are more likely to abandon the purchase altogether.”
For example, a small café might emulate Starbucks by offering similar seasonal drinks, which could be considered fair competition. But if that café uses a green-and-white logo featuring a mermaid-like figure, it veers into unethical territory. Similarly, a roaster claiming to offer “single-origin, sustainable coffee” while selling commodity-grade blends is misleading at best.
The coffee industry’s structure exacerbates the issue. Specialty coffee brands invest heavily in quality, sourcing directly from farmers and paying premiums for unique lots. Copycats, by contrast, often cut corners, using generic blends and allocating resources to marketing and branding rather than product quality.
This dynamic allows imitators to undercut genuine specialty brands on price while capturing a share of their market. How do they get away with this, and where is the line between drawing inspiration from successful competitors and crossing into unethical imitation?
“There’s a common misconception that making six or so changes to a product will be enough to avoid a copyright infringement claim,” says Ellie.
“Whether or not a product infringes rights in another will need to be assessed on a case by case basis but, if you’ve copied a substantial part of the product – which is itself original and capable of protection – then you’re likely to get into hot water.”
Rules, loopholes, and the fight against copycats
The legal landscape surrounding copycat brands is murky. Trademarks protect logos, slogans, and other brand identifiers, but only when the resemblance is clear enough to cause consumer confusion.
This makes it difficult to fight cases of “inspired” branding that stops short of outright duplication.
In the coffee industry, the situation is compounded by the global nature of trade. A roaster in one country might find it nearly impossible to take legal action against a copycat brand operating in another, particularly if the offending company tweaks its designs just enough to evade intellectual property laws.
This is a common tactic: according to WIPO, many trademark infringement cases involve minor alterations to logos or packaging.
“Intellectual property (IP) laws, despite a number of local nuances, follow a fairly harmonised international structure,” says Ellie. “There are rights that you need to register such as trade marks, designs, and patents, which can be done nationally or internationally – but there are other rights that don’t require registration, such as copyright.”
“Copyright comes into existence as soon as an original piece of work is created. In order to better safeguard their IP, companies should identify what their work product and brand are – what they are creating and how they are known to consumers – and how best to protect it in those jurisdictions of interest. Legal support doesn’t have to cost the earth and will help companies to navigate this area and get the best outcome, in terms of level of protection and cost savings.”
There’s also the question of whether regulations will tighten as the coffee industry continues to professionalise. Certifications like Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, and organic labels have created a baseline of accountability for sustainability claims.
But copycat brands often find ways to mimic these labels too, using vague terms like “ethically sourced” or misleading visual cues without meeting the actual certification criteria.
So, how can legitimate brands protect themselves? Investing in strong, distinctive branding is one way. Companies can also register their trademarks in key markets early to preempt potential infringement.
“My recommendation to companies with bold and disruptive branding is to focus on making their products easily recognisable and accessible to consumers,” says Fernando.
“This includes ensuring the brand stays prominent in consumers’ minds through actions aligned with their budget. Maintaining consistent visibility and recognition is essential, not only for the brand’s longevity but also for ensuring that consumers can clearly distinguish the original from any imitators.”
Ultimately, the rise of copycat brands in coffee and other industries raises ethical questions about competition, creativity, and consumer protection.
As the market grows more competitive, the balance between inspiration and exploitation will become increasingly delicate. Whether through stricter regulations or stronger branding, legitimate players must find ways to safeguard their integrity while adapting to this new reality.
Coffee Intelligence
Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter here.
