Authored By: Vandana G S
Sastra Deemed University
ABSTRACT
Generation Z control the digital narrative today, their aesthetic outlook, personal branding, and social media presentation has transformed the contemporary marketing and influence trends today. In the recent times the emergence of the “Dupe culture” among the Gen z consumers has significantly changed the Fashion luxury landscape in India. Since dupe products replicate the aesthetic appeal, design language, and overall visual appearance of the product it leads to a subtle imitation of the brand rather than out-right copy of the luxury brand’s logo and names, which creates a legal grey area in this regard as it raises critical question about the adequacy of the Indian Intellectual Property framework. This article examines whether India’s current intellectual property laws, comprising the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Copyright Act 1957, and the Designs Act 2000, are equipped to address the phenomenon of aesthetic imitation that defines dupe culture. Employing doctrinal legal research methodology, statutory interpretation, judicial precedent, and comparative analysis with the European Union and the United States, this article finds that significant legislative and enforcement gaps exist. And finally, re forms are proposed to reconcile consumer demand, creative protection, and market equity in a distinctly Indian commercial context.
INTRODUCTION
In India, if one walks through the streets of Chandini Chowk in Delhi, a hub for selling dupes of the major Fashion luxury brands, form the iconic Sabyasachi lehengas and Manish Malhotra’s sarees one can find near identical versions readily available. What is particularly fascinating is that, these products are marketed openly as “dupes” and is glorified as such. Historically, purchasing imitation luxury goods was often viewed with a sense of social stigma, and perceived as a sign of economic compromise. However, with the remarkable rise of social media platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, the vocabulary of the “dupe” has entered mainstream discourse.
Among Gen Z consumers, what was once considered embarrassing has been reframed as a savvy consumer choice celebrated for its affordability, accessibility, and aesthetic similarity to high-end luxury products. Now, from the Sarojini Nagar markets of Delhi to the Fashion Street stalls of Mumbai, from Meesho listings to WhatsApp boutique groups, dupe commerce is expansive, socially celebrated, and legally murky.
This phenomenon presents a multifaceted legal question: to what extent does the purchase, sale, and promotion of aesthetically imitative goods constitute a violation of intellectual property rights under Indian law, and where does lawful imitation end and unlawful infringement begin? The legal question this article addresses is: Are India’s existing intellectual property laws specifically the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Copyright Act 1957, and the Designs Act 2000 adequate to regulate the aesthetic imitation that characterizes dupe culture in the Gen Z marketplace, and if not, what reforms are necessary?
This article proceeds as follows. Section II establishes the background and conceptual framework. Section III provides in-depth legal analysis of how existing IP statutes apply to dupe culture. Section IV discusses key Indian and comparative case law. Section V offers critical analysis identifying legislative gaps. Section VI concludes with findings and reform recommendations.
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
II.1. Statutory landscape and Dupe culture problem
Intellectual Property law in India is governed by a matrix of statutes, each addressing a specific and different aspect of creative and commercial output. The Trade Marks Act 1999 protects registered marks, logos, packaging, color combination and shapes from unauthorized use. The Copyright Act 1957 protects original artistic works and the Designs Act 2000, specifically addresses the visual and aesthetic features [limited to industrial products] granted through registration. “Dupe culture” as a legal subject sits uncomfortably within this framework. Each statute protects identifiable marks or specific expressions, not broader stylistic inspiration.
II.2. Counterfeits vs. Dupes: The Brand Paradox
In the Morden Marketspace, it is important to understand the difference between a “counterfeit” and a “dupe”, A counterfeit product typically reproduces a registered mark or logo and falsely represents its origin, thereby clearly falling within the scope of trademark infringement and passing off.
A dupe, however, operates differently, it replicates the aesthetic appeal or design language of a product while deliberately omitting any protected marks or branding elements. This distinction has become increasingly visible by the Gen Z marketplace, where consumers openly seek out “dupes” of luxury fashion items on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, an online resale marketplace.
The distinction between counterfeits and dupes is not only legal but also economic. Counterfeit products reproduce the original brand’s trademark, logo, or other identifying features and falsely present themselves as genuine goods. While such practices clearly constitute trademark infringement, they may still inadvertently contribute to the circulation and visibility of the brand in the marketplace. Many consumers who purchase counterfeit goods are often outside the luxury brand’s intended consumer base and would not have purchased the original product in any case. As a result, counterfeits may sometimes function as a form of informal brand promotion, increasing public visibility and reinforcing the aspirational value associated with the brand.
Dupes, however, operate under a different economic logic. Unlike counterfeits, dupes deliberately avoid reproducing the brand’s name, logo, or other protected identifiers. Instead, they replicate the aesthetic design, style, and overall visual appeal of the original product while offering a cheaper alternative. Because the brand identity is absent, dupes do not circulate or promote the original brand in the marketplace. Consumers purchasing dupes are generally aware that the product is not associated with the original brand but merely inspired by its design. Consequently, while counterfeits may inadvertently contribute to brand visibility and aspirational value, dupes provide an affordable substitute that appropriates the aesthetic appeal of the product without offering any economic or reputational benefit to the original brand, thereby highlighting a significant gap in the existing intellectual property framework.
II.3. The Chinese Factory Revelation: Fueling Gen Z Dupe Culture in India and the Globe
The global turning point emerged in April 2025, when Chinese factory workers began posting viral videos on TikTok a phenomenon widely referred to as “Trade War TikTok.” In these videos, workers claimed that luxury products associated with brands such as Hermès, Gucci, and Chanel were manufactured in Chinese factories at a fraction of their global retail price. The trend emerged amid escalating trade tensions following the United States’ imposition of tariffs reportedly reaching 145% on certain Chinese imports.
The viral exposure of alleged manufacturing realities triggered a dramatic shift in consumer behavior. The Chinese e-commerce platform DHgate surged from No. 352 to No. 3 on the U.S. App Store rankings within days, reflecting the scale of global curiosity around low-cost alternatives to luxury goods. For Indian Gen Z consumers already familiar with “dupe haul” culture on platforms such as Meesho these videos appeared to validate a growing perception, that the substantial price premium attached to luxury products is primarily attributable to brand identity rather than manufacturing cost.
This narrative has fueled a particularly influential consumer logic: if the premium paid for a luxury product largely reflects the brand’s logo and symbolic value, then a product that replicates the aesthetic design but omits the logo cannot be considered deceptive. While this reasoning has gained traction within digital marketplaces and social media discourse, it remains legally flawed
LEGAL ANAYSIS
III.1. Trade Mark Law and the Challenge of Aesthetic Similarity
Section 2(1) (zb) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 defines a “trade mark” as a mark capable of graphically graphical representation and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. This definition expressly extends to the shape of the goods, their packaging and combination of colours, which is a deliberate legislative intent to acknowledge that the brand identity transcend the logo.
Yet the Act was ultimately articulated for a marketplace where infringement meant the unauthorized reproduction of a registered mark, for example when a logo is copied, or the name is stolen or a consumer id deceived. It was never designed to confront a cultural economy where imitation is not only deliberate but celebrated and with the rise of this revelation of dupes has fundamentally rewritten the commercial logic of copying. In the present, the consumers are not confused, they are informed. They know the original brand, they recognize and they consciously choose the imitation.
Section 29 of the Act mentions the grounds for an infringement of a registered trademark, to invoke this provision it requires the brand to show confusion or deceptive similarity of the product, but dupe produces has neither. Sec 29(4) Offers the protection of dilution of the brand that has a registered trade mark, but it applied only to the marks that are established and reputed in India a threshold that excludes the most exclusive luxury brands whose very scarcity undermines their domestic recognition. There is no dedicated trade dress provision, no unfair advantage standard, and no mechanism to address aesthetic free-riding the deliberate commercial exploitation of a brand’s creative investment without reproducing a single protected element. The Act, in its current form, has no answer for a marketplace where the copy is sold openly, the original is acknowledged openly, and the law watches helplessly.
III.2. Copyright Law and Artistic Works
The Copyright Act 1957 protects original artistic works, including works of artistic craftsmanship. Section 2(c) of the Act defines Artistic work to include paintings, sculptures, drawings, engravings, photographs, and works of artistic craftsmanship. A Product designs may qualify as artistic works where they exhibit sufficient originality.
At the outset, the Act appears to offer meaningful protection for fashion designs. However, for luxury fashion brands, copyright law presents a peculiar irony: while protection technically subsists, it extends to very little that is commercially significant. A foundational principle of copyright law is that “it protects the expression of an idea, but never the idea itself.” Consequently, a brand may own copyright in the specific artistic rendering of a bag’s design such as its technical drawing, blueprint, or design sketch but it cannot claim ownership over the underlying aesthetic concept. Elements such as a trapezoid silhouette, a saddle-stitch pattern, or a particular hardware arrangement remain ideas or functional design features rather than protectable expressions.
This limitation creates a significant gap in protection. A dupe manufacturer who replicates the aesthetic concept or visual impression of a product, without copying the exact artistic representation of the design, can often operate outside the scope of copyright infringement.
Further, while fast-fashion brands frequently lose copyright protection due to the industrial application threshold under Section 15 of the Act, luxury brands often produce goods in deliberately limited quantities. As a result, copyright in their designs technically continues to subsist without requiring registration under the Designs Act 2000. Yet this survival of copyright protection is largely illusory in commercial terms, because the law protects only the design sketch or artistic representation not the marketable aesthetic that consumers recognize and value.
III.3. The Design Act 2000 and Registered Design Protection
The Designs Act 2000 protects novel and original features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines and colours applied to any article by an industrial process. Protection lasts for ten years, extendable by five more, and is contingent on registration. Section 22 provides a cause of action against piracy of registered designs.
For dupe culture, the Designs Act would appear to be the most directly relevant statute. Yet its practical utility is undermined by three structural problems. First, the registration requirement means that only a fraction of designs receive protection. Second, novelty requirements are strictly applied: if a design is prior-published or not substantially different from existing designs, registration may be refused. Third, the Act provides limited remedies in comparison to trademark or copyright infringement actions, and enforcement by way of civil suits is slow and expensive relative to the scale of the dupe market.
Moreover, the distinction between a protected design feature (the aesthetic element) and an unprotected functional feature is frequently contested in litigation, adding uncertainty for brand owners seeking protection.
III.4. Passing Off and the Common law Dimension
Beyond the statutory framework of Intellectual Property law, India recognizes the common law tort of passing off and residual protective mechanism for unregistered goodwill.
In the case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All ER 873 the classical trinity was established requiring proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage, is consistently applied by Indian courts. In the context of dupe culture, proving the damage in goodwill is straightforward as when dupes flood the market, they directly attack the exclusivity and premium value that makes a luxury brand what it is.
The real problem can arise with the second requirement which is misrepresentation. Passing off was originally designed to protect consumers from being deceived into thinking they are buying something they are not. But dupe culture does not deceive anyone. There is no misrepresentation happening because the dupe is never pretending to be the original.
Indian courts have occasionally tried to stretch passing off to cover situations where a brand’s goodwill is being exploited even without direct deception but this has been inconsistent and limited to specific facts of each case. It does not offer any reliable or widespread protection against the dupe market. In Guccio Gucci v. Shipra Overseas (Delhi HC, 2010), the court expansively protected Gucci’s aesthetic elements stripes, motifs, trade dress without logo reproduction, stretching misrepresentation to cover goodwill siphoning through visual similarity. Yet in Toyota v. Prius Auto Industries (SC, 2017), Toyota’s passing off claim failed entirely for insufficient proof of Indian market goodwill global fame without local evidence was held inadequate. Together, these cases expose passing off’s fatal inconsistency success depends entirely on evidentiary strength, leaving luxury brands without reliable or systematic protection against dupe culture.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Hermès International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. CS (COMM) 716/2021 | Delhi High Court | November 24, 2025
Facts: Hermès sued Macky Lifestyle for selling Birkin bag lookalikes online without authorisation. The defendant denied manufacturing or selling such bags and had ceased operations.
Issues: Whether the Birkin’s 3D shape constituted a protectable trademark; whether Hermès’ marks qualified as “well-known”; whether infringement and passing off occurred.
Provisions: Sections 2(1) (zb), 2(1) (zg), 11(6), 11(7), 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Decision: Justice Karia decreed in Hermès’ favour, declaring the Birkin’s 3D shape, HERMÈS word mark, and device marks as well-known trademarks the first Indian recognition of a luxury product’s shape as a well-known trademark and granted a permanent injunction.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Abdus Salam Khan CS(COMM) 278/2024 | Delhi High Court | 2024
Facts: Gaurav Gupta’s company sued Abdus Salam Khan for replicating his signature “sculpted boning” technique a handcrafted 3D couture aesthetic produced in under fifty units per design in commercially sold garments without authorisation.
Issues: Whether sculpted boning constituted protectable artistic craftsmanship; whether sub-fifty-unit production preserved copyright under Section 15(2); whether replication warranted injunctive relief.
Provisions: Sections 2(c), 15(2), 55 Copyright Act, 1957.
Decision: The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, accepting that the artisanal, sub-fifty-unit production model kept the designs outside Section 15(2)’s industrial application threshold, thereby preserving copyright protection.
Protection was available solely because of Gupta’s exclusively artisanal model. Once production exceeds fifty units, copyright lapses entirely. With per-action enforcement costs of approximately Rs. 5–6 lakh, this ruling offers no scalable remedy against mainstream dupe culture.
Sabyasachi Mukherjee v. H&M India Unresolved Dispute | 2023–2024
Facts: Sabyasachi publicly alleged that H&M India had replicated a distinctive ornamental motif and embroidery pattern from his collection in commercially sold garments without reproducing any registered trademark or logo sparking widespread media and legal commentary.
Issues: Whether replicating a distinctive aesthetic without reproducing any registered mark constituted copyright infringement or passing off; whether unregistered fashion aesthetics attract any IP protection under Indian law.
Provisions: Sections 2(c), 15(2) Copyright Act, 1957; Section 22 Designs Act, 2000; common law passing off.
Decision: No formal judicial ruling was rendered. The dispute remained entirely unresolved.
The absence of any decision is itself the most telling outcome. With no registered design, no trademark reproduction, and no consumer confusion, no actionable claim existed. The dispute exposes Indian IP law’s structural inability to remedy aesthetic free-riding — the very commercial harm that defines dupe culture.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A critical review of India’s intellectual property framework reveals three systemic gaps that enable dupe culture to thrive with relative legal impunity gaps that are especially acute given India’s unique commercial and cultural context.
Firstly, the India’s intellectual property framework the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000 was collectively designed to address direct copying, not aesthetic approximation. Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act demands confusion or deceptive similarity; a threshold dupe culture is architecturally designed to avoid since the Gen Z consumer is never confused but always informed. Section 29(4)’s dilution protection demands established Indian market reputation, paradoxically excluding the most exclusive luxury brands whose deliberate scarcity undermines the very evidentiary threshold the law requires. Copyright technically subsists for luxury brands but protects only specific artistic expression leaving the silhouette, stitching pattern, and cumulative aesthetic identity entirely exposed as unprotectable ideas. The Designs Act, meanwhile, is defeated by its own registration requirement in a marketplace where trends are commercially exhausted before registration is even processed.
Secondly, the enforcement landscape is structurally inadequate. Even where rights technically subsist, enforcement is commercially irrational for all but the wealthiest brands. The dupe market operates at scale through WhatsApp boutique groups, Instagram shops, and platforms like Meesho, and Flipkart. When a Jaipur-based independent designer discovers her embroidery pattern being sold by forty-seven different Meesho sellers simultaneously. India lacks a small-claims IP mechanism, and the platform liability framework under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 imposes insufficient proactive obligations on e-commerce intermediaries.
Third, the law has not addressed the cultural normalization of aesthetic imitation in India. Unlike in the United States or France, where copying designer aesthetics carries some social stigma, India’s relationship with imitation is deeply ambivalent. The bazaar economy has always thrived on “inspired” goods. Bollywood costume design routinely adapts international trends for Indian sensibilities without attribution. The phrase “copy” in Indian retail has none of the pejorative connotations it carries in Western IP discourse — it simply means “available in a similar style.” Any legal reform must contend with this cultural context, rather than simply transplanting Western IP norms.
From a comparative perspective, France’s concurrence déloyale doctrine and the US Lanham Act trade dress provisions offer more comprehensive remedies. India’s framework is TRIPS-compliant in letter but enforcement-deficient in practice.
CONCLUSION
Dupe culture has exposed a fundamental truth about Indian intellectual property law it was built for a world of deception, and the Gen Z marketplace operates without any. The informed consumer who proudly purchases a Birkin-inspired bag is not confused, not deceived, and not misled and it is precisely this transparency that renders every available legal remedy structurally inadequate. What dupe culture steals is not a mark, not an expression, not a registered design it steals meaning, the accumulated cultural and commercial significance that luxury brands spend decades and billions constructing. Indian law has no word for that theft, and therefore no remedy for it.
Until India introduces dedicated trade dress protection, extends dilution to marks with international repute, and builds enforcement mechanisms suited to digital marketplaces, the law will continue to offer luxury brands an expensive illusion of protection. Reform is not merely commercially necessary it is a question of whether Indian IP law is capable of keeping pace with the marketplace it is meant to govern.
Suggestions
- Enact Dedicated Trade Dress Protection: Introduce a standalone chapter in Trade Marks Act 1999 for unregistered trade dress (get-up, color combos, shapes) with presumptions of secondary meaning for long-used luxury elements, mirroring US Lanham Act §43(a).
- Broaden Dilution Standards: Amend Section 29(4) to cover “unfair advantage” for international repute marks without strict Indian goodwill proof; add “blurring/tarnishment” tests for aesthetic free-riding.
- Revise Designs Act: Extend unregistered design rights to 3 years for fashion/luxury; lower novelty thresholds for novel aesthetics; integrate with TM for hybrid claims.
- Digital Marketplace Obligations: Mandate platforms (Meesho, Instagram) to use AI-flagging for dupe listings, with safe harbor tied to proactive takedowns; empower IP controllers for ex-parte blocks like IT Act Section 69A.
- Border and E-Commerce Measures: Strengthen Customs TMRO raids with “aesthetic suspicion” criteria; require dupe sellers to disclose inspirations via mandatory disclaimers.
- Consumer Evidence Tools: Allow judicial notice of social media trends/surveys for proving dilution/damage; fast-track luxury IP suits via specialized commercial divisions.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Legislation
Indian Legislation
Copyright Act 1957 (India)
Designs Act 2000 (India)
information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (India)
Information Technology Act 2000 (India), s 69A
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), ss 2(1)(zb), 2(1)(zg), 11(6), 11(7), 29, 29(4)
International and Foreign Legislation
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299
Lanham Act 1946 (US), 15 USC §43(a)
Cases
Indian Cases
Guccio Gucci SpA v Shipra Overseas CS (OS) 529/2008 (Delhi High Court, 2010)
Hermès International & Anr v Macky Lifestyle Pvt Ltd CS (COMM) 716/2021 (Delhi High Court, 24 November 2025)
M/S Reflect Sculpt Pvt Ltd & Anr v Abdus Salam Khan CS(COMM) 278/2024 (Delhi High Court, 2024)
Sabyasachi Mukherjee v H&M India (Unresolved Dispute, 2023–2024)
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v Prius Auto Industries Ltd & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India, 2017)
Foreign Cases
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All ER 873 (House of Lords)
Secondary Sources
Journal Articles
Bhatt A, ‘Fashion Law in India: Emerging Jurisprudence on Design Imitation and Trade Dress’ (2022) 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 241
Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, ‘The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design’ (2006) 92 Virginia Law Review 1687
Stacey L Dogan and Mark A Lemley, ‘The Merchandising Right: Fragile Theory or Fait Accompli?’ (2005) 54 Emory Law Journal 461
Books and Chapters
Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2023)
Pravin Anand, Trade Marks Law in India (LexisNexis 2021)
Shamnad Basheer (ed), Intellectual Property Law in India (Wolters Kluwer 2019)
Reports and Policy Documents
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Annual Report on Intellectual Property in India (Ministry of Commerce and Industry 2023)
European Union Intellectual Property Office, The Economic Cost of IPR Infringement in the Fashion, Clothing, Accessories and Footwear Sectors (EUIPO 2022) <https://euipo.europa.eu> accessed 9 March 2026
World Intellectual Property Organization, World Intellectual Property Indicators 2023 (WIPO 2023) <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2023-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2023.pdf> accessed 9 March 2026
Online Sources and News Reports
Ananya Bhatt, ‘Dupe Culture and Indian Gen Z: A Shifting Legal Frontier’ (Bar and Bench, 14 January 2024) <https://www.barandbench.com> accessed 9 March 2026
Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Interview on IP Protection for Fashion Design (Vogue India, 2022) <https://www.vogue.in> accessed 9 March 2026
Siddharth Dalmia, ‘Trade War TikTok: How Chinese Factory Videos Reshaped Luxury Commerce’ (The Hindu BusinessLine, 22 April 2025) <https://www.thehindubusinessline.com> accessed 9 March 2026
‘DHgate Surges to No. 3 on US App Store Amid Trade Tensions’ (Reuters, April 2025) <https://www.reuters.com> accessed 9 March 2026
‘Luxury Brands and Dupe Markets: Legal Remedies in India’ (SpicyIP, 2023) <https://spicyip.com> accessed 9 March 2026
