Viral Trade Dress Lawsuits: Dupe Cases from Stanley to e.l.f.

Lawsuits over “dupe culture” — the sale of cheaper look-alike versions of viral brand-name products — are working their way through federal courts across the country, with major brands like Stanley, Lululemon, Supergoop, and Sol de Janeiro accusing discount retailers and rival brands of copying their packaging and product designs without permission. The suits, filed mostly between 2023 and 2026, test how far trade dress law can stretch to police products that mimic a bestseller’s look without using its name or logo.

What a Dupe Actually Is

“Dupe” is short for duplicate. A dupe product imitates the appearance, packaging, or feel of a more expensive brand without using that brand’s name or logo. That distinguishes it from a counterfeit, which puts the real brand’s mark on a fake and is straightforwardly illegal.¹ Dupes sit in a gray area, and social media has flooded that gray area with demand. A 2023 Business Insider survey found that 71% of Gen Z and 67% of millennials regularly buy dupes.²

Brand owners are turning to trade dress law, a branch of trademark law that protects the overall visual appearance of a product or its packaging rather than the name or logo alone. Whether that protection covers a squared-off tumbler handle or a blue-and-yellow sunscreen tube is exactly what these lawsuits are asking courts to decide.

Stanley v. Five Below

The most closely watched dupe case was filed in November 2025, when Pacific Market International, the parent of Stanley drinkware, sued Five Below in the Northern District of California. PMI accused the discount chain of infringing the trade dress of its Quencher and IceFlow tumblers. The complaint identifies specific design elements as protected: on the Quencher, a squared-off handle, a metal band between the cup and lid, and a separate strip at the top of the lid; on the IceFlow, a five-sided hexagonal handle, a metal band, and a flip-straw.³ Five Below was selling competing cups under names like Hyperquench, Hydraquench, HydraSip, and Hydrachug.⁴ PMI called Five Below a “serial infringer” engaged in a “willful campaign of intellectual property theft.”

Five Below answered in January 2026 with counterclaims arguing that PMI was trying to “stretch intellectual property law beyond its intended limits” and that the tumbler features at issue are “functional, common, and not eligible for broad trademark or patent protection.” Its most interesting argument was rhetorical: because consumers themselves call the cheaper cups “dupes,” they plainly know they aren’t buying a Stanley, so there’s no confusion.⁴ The court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for discovery and settlement, and a settlement conference filing appeared on the docket in late April 2026.⁵

Supergoop v. Five Below

In June 2025, the sunscreen brand Supergoop sued Five Below in the Southern District of New York over its private-label SUGARGIRL! line, launched in April 2025. Supergoop pointed to a stack of packaging parallels: white tubes, handwritten-style blue logos that begin with a capital S and end with an exclamation point, all-caps product names, SPF indicators inside heart designs, yellow caps, and the same blue-white-yellow palette. It also alleged Five Below’s “GLOWY FACE SCREEN” infringed its registered GLOWSCREEN mark. Supergoop said it sent a demand letter in late April 2025 and got only an acknowledgment. It is seeking an injunction, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees.⁶

Five Below is also facing a copyright suit from Dreams USA, which makes the collectible Sonny Angel figurines. Dreams USA alleges Five Below tried to become an authorized retailer, was turned down, and sold copies anyway.⁷ An earlier December 2023 case in the Middle District of Florida, brought by Spin-balls LLC (Fun In Motion Toys), alleged patent and trademark infringement over three products: Calmagami, Magic Cube, and LED Poi Balls.⁸ A pattern runs through the complaints: plaintiffs allege Five Below kept selling the disputed items after receiving demand letters.

Lululemon v. Costco

In late June 2025, Lululemon sued Costco in the Central District of California over Kirkland-branded apparel that allegedly copied design elements of its Define jackets, Scuba hoodies, and ABC pants. The complaint asserts trademark, trade dress, and design patent infringement, and Lululemon is seeking lost profits and an injunction. The case is active.⁹

Smucker v. Trader Joe’s

In October 2025, the J.M. Smucker Company sued Trader Joe’s in the Northern District of Ohio over crustless peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, alleging Trader Joe’s packaging infringed the trade dress of its Uncrustables — a nearly $1 billion annual brand, according to the complaint.¹⁰ Smucker’s pointed to the round crimped-edge shape, packaging imagery of a bitten sandwich revealing the filling, and use of blue. Trader Joe’s moved to dismiss in January 2026 and asked to transfer venue.¹¹

Sol de Janeiro v. MCoBeauty

Sol de Janeiro sued the Australian beauty brand MCoBeauty in the Southern District of New York, alleging trade dress infringement, false advertising, and deceptive practices over products that allegedly copied the packaging, colors, and branding of its Cheirosa body mist line. MCoBeauty filed a motion to dismiss in January 2026, arguing the design elements are generic and functional and that Sol de Janeiro, which reported $450 million in revenue and 19% year-over-year U.S. sales growth, cannot show competitive harm.²

Williams-Sonoma v. Dupe.com

Not every dupe fight is over the products themselves. In August 2024, Williams-Sonoma sued Carrot Cart Inc., which does business as Dupe.com, in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that Dupe.com marketed its platform by falsely claiming brands like West Elm and Pottery Barn were “white-labeling” mass-market goods and inflating prices. Claims included copyright infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices. The parties settled confidentially in October 2025 and dismissed with prejudice, with a stipulation letting them return to court if the agreement is breached.¹²

The One Case That Has Been Decided: Benefit v. e.l.f.

So far, only one dupe case has reached a verdict, and defendants are already citing it. In December 2024, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California ruled for e.l.f. Cosmetics after a bench trial in a suit brought by Benefit Cosmetics. Benefit had alleged that e.l.f.’s Lash ‘N Roll mascara infringed the trademark and trade dress of its Roller Lash. The court found no likelihood of consumer confusion, pointing to prominent separate branding, a large price gap (roughly $29 versus $6), and consumer sophistication. The court wrote that “Benefit has not shown that Lash ‘N Roll, while it is a ‘dupe’ of Roller Lash, actually dupes any consumers.”¹³

The ruling is an early signal that similarity alone won’t carry a trade dress case if the cheaper product is clearly branded as something different and sold at a fraction of the price. Winning takes proof that real buyers are actually confused about who made the product.

What a Trade Dress Plaintiff Has to Prove

Trade dress covers the total visual appearance of a product or its packaging: size, shape, color, texture, graphics, layout. Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125), a brand can sue even if the trade dress is not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.¹⁴

Three elements have to be shown. The trade dress must be non-functional; features essential to how a product works, or that affect its cost or quality, cannot be locked up. The trade dress must be either inherently distinctive or have acquired “secondary meaning” — consumers associate the look with a particular brand. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. (2000), product design is never inherently distinctive and always requires proof of secondary meaning. And the plaintiff must show a likelihood of consumer confusion.¹⁴

Every one of these elements is contested in the active cases. Five Below’s answer to Stanley attacks all three, arguing the tumbler features are functional, industry-standard, and unlikely to fool anyone weighing a $45 cup against a $5 one. MCoBeauty makes a parallel argument about generic packaging. The Benefit v. e.l.f. ruling suggests courts may find price gaps and clear branding powerful evidence against confusion.

What to Watch

The dupe label often originates on TikTok and Instagram rather than in retailer marketing, which complicates enforcement. A store can benefit from viral “Stanley dupe” videos without ever using the Stanley name itself, and the person doing the comparing may not be a viable defendant.¹ That leaves brand owners pursuing the retailers directly, and trade dress is the tool available.

The Stanley v. Five Below case is the one to watch most closely. Five Below’s counterclaims squarely attack the breadth of trade dress protection for mass-market goods, arguing that ordinary features like handles and lids cannot be monopolized. A ruling on those counterclaims would set boundaries that reach across the retail industry. Settlement discussions opened in April 2026, so the case may resolve without a written opinion.⁵ If it doesn’t, it will be one of the first federal rulings to address the dupe economy head-on, and the answers it gives — about functionality, about what consumers actually understand when they buy a “dupe,” about how much a price gap protects a defendant — will shape whether the current wave of lawsuits becomes a permanent feature of retail law or fades as brands recalculate their odds.

1
IPWatchdog. Run Dont Walk Dupe Culture Trade Dress Growing Fight Brand Identity
2
The Fashion Law. Dupes or Deception MCoBeauty Challenges Sol de Janeiro Lawsuit
3
Gerben Law. Stanley Maker Sues Five Below Over Alleged Dupe Tumblers
4
The Fashion Law. Five Below Pushes Back Inside the Claims Challenging Stanleys Tumbler Monopoly
5
CourtListener. Pacific Market International LLC v. Five Below Inc.
6
Gerben Law. Supergoop Sues Five Below Over Alleged Knockoff Sunscreen Line
7
The Fashion Law. Five Belows Dupe Economy Is Drawing Mounting IP Lawsuits
8
Bloomberg Law. Five Below Created Copycat Products Toy Company Says in Lawsuit
9
CBS News. Lululemon Costco Lawsuit
10
KJK. Smuckers Uncrustables Versus Trader Joes Crustless Sandwiches
11
IAM. Trader Joes Files Motion to Dismiss in Ongoing Trade Dress Infringement Dispute
12
The Fashion Law. The Real Stakes Behind Williams-Sonomas Case Against Dupe.com
13
Justia. Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. E.L.F. Cosmetics Inc.
14
Justia. Trade Dress