An issue that has been given a lot of attention in the beauty industry recently is the question about the morality of “duping” popular products. “Dupe” is an abbreviation of duplicate and is ostensibly a product that is similar in quality or appearance to another, well known product. Usually, dupes are seen as a more affordable product that is an alternative to a high-end product. These dupes are not produced by the same company but are replicated by brands known for selling products at a lesser price point.

However, dupes can cause problems due to their similarity to well-known products. This has led to allegations of plagiarism and even legal action in some cases.

At the centre of this recent controversy, is popular Youtuber and social media influencer, Manuel Gutierrez known professionally as Manny Mua, who has spoken out against the brand Makeup Revolution for producing a dupe of one of his products from his brand Lunar Beauty. Lunar Beauty is known for its unique packaging component of its Moon Prism Highlighting Powder. The hexagonal shape, arguably, is in keeping with the branding of the company, known for its relation to space, and Makeup Revolution have produced a highlighter in a similar component. Gutierrez alleges that despite some differences in shade formulation, it is essentially a copy of his brand’s product.

Gutierrez on Sunday 15thMarch, via his YouTube channel, brought this issue to the public’s attention, expressing his frustration and disappointment at what he considers to be a blatant copyright issue. His arguments are centred on his allegation that the component for his highlighter is custom made and therefore, is unique to his brand.

Makeup Revolution responded to this allegation in a statement via social media, acknowledging the similarities but contending that a company representative had been shown this particular component at a trade show and were seemingly unaware of the similarities to the highlighter by Lunar Beauty. They argue that they were led to believe that this product component was a freely available design and was released as part of their glass collection in February 2020. On launch of this collection, Lunar Beauty’s legal team contacted Makeup Revolution but allegedly failed to respond to requests for trademark or copyright documentation in relation to this design or provide original designs and illustrations for the component. As a matter of courtesy, Makeup Revolution took steps to remove the product from sale and advised distributors to follow the same steps. 

Further in this statement, the company have stated that their intent was not to “crush the spirit of entrepenrualism” (sic) but to make beauty trends affordable for all. However, Makeup Revolution are very much a brand known for duping products. One of their products that has drawn similar criticism in the past was their ‘Light and Shade’ palette, released in 2014, known for its marked similarities to the Kat Von Dee Beauty ‘Shade and Light’ palette.

In his video, Gutierrez acknowledged that not only has he worked with Makeup Revolution in the past, and in theory at least, he is overall supportive of the concept of dupes but objects to what could be considered to be an exact copy.

While the duplication of higher priced brands in fashion and beauty is widespread, ethically this raises issues when after the time and resources spent developing and producing. A product, to have it copied it immoral. However, consumers at large do have the opportunity to purchase predicts at a more affordable price therefore gaining access to products of a similar quality. Concerns are that consumers may be confused as to the source of these products and this could lead to overall confusion.

The legality of this widespread practice is also questioned. Trademark law protects those aspects of a product that identify its source, recognising that consumers often rely upon product design and packaging to identify the source. Therefore, the product designs and product packaging can be protected under a concept known as trade dress which states that the packaging must be both non-functional and distinctive in order to be considered unique.

Turning to consider the products in question, undoubtedly, they share similar qualities; both are highlighters in hexagonal packaging. However, without proof that this is a unique design, exclusive to Lunar Beauty, it remains questionable whether copyright has been infringed. Many other brands also utilise similar components, notably Fenty Beauty, which also has highlighters in this similar hexagonal shape. It remains a difficult and contentious avenue of law to prove, however, brands like Charlotte Tilbury, who successfully sued supermarket chain Aldi over similar allegations show it is possible.

While it is no doubt a good thing that quality makeup brands are becoming available to all consumers, regardless of budget constraints, questions regarding ethics will continue to be raised. However, brands that produce high quality, unique products will always have consumers who will continue to purchase directly due to brand loyalty, which is why companies should continue to foster good relationships their consumer base.

References: 

Celletti, E., 2020. Makeup Revolution Pulls Products After Manny MUA's Accusations. [online] Teen Vogue. Available at: <https://www.teenvogue.com/story/makeup-revolution-manny-mua-lunar-beauty-packaging> [Accessed 15 March 2020].

Know, T., 2020. Trade Dress Infringement | Upcounsel 2020. [online] UpCounsel. Available at: <https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress-infringement> [Accessed 15 March 2020].

Life With Mrs T. 2020. ​Copycats; Is It Makeup Plagiarism?. [online] Available at: <https://lifewithmrst.com/2017/11/19/%E2%80%8Bcopycats-makeup-plagiarism/> [Accessed 31 March 2020].