Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Charlotte Tilbury, the British fashion make-up artist who created a billion dollar brand, is sure that her cosmetics are unique. “So many brands have tried to copy it, but darling, you can’t fake that Tilbury feeling,” she pledges in a new campaign extolling her “undupable” line-up.
If only. Tilbury’s rise to become one of the leading cosmetics brands in the UK, US and other countries, has brought forth many imitators. There is now an industry of cheaper dupes (duplicates) of her top products, from Hollywood Flawless Filter to the Pinkgasm Beauty Light Wand and Charlotte’s Magic Cream moisturiser.
Companies such as MCoBeauty and E.L.F. make dupes of Charlotte Tilbury (and other brands) that are endorsed by social media influencers eager to get the Tilbury look for less. While a bottle of Hollywood Flawless Filter sells for $49 in the US, MCo’s Flawless Glow costs only $14.99.
Tilbury is not imagining that she is being imitated. MCoBeauty, an Australian company, explicitly tries to match top cosmetics products and to offer them in packaging that look quite close to the original. Its lawyers examined her trademarks and design rights before designing its similar, but legally distinctive, Flawless Glow bottle.
MCoBeauty is not alone. Duping, or product benchmarking, as it is more politely known, is a mainstay of food and drink industries, and now of cosmetics. It is also a core strategy of discounters such as Aldi and Costco, which often sell private label versions of branded products.
Premium brands such as Charlotte Tilbury, which is majority owned by the Spanish fragrance and cosmetics company Puig, face a constant battle against duping and unlawful “passing off”. The latter is the term for rivals making products that look so similar that they deceive shoppers into believing they are the same.
Brand owners gained a victory last week when Thatchers won a case for trademark infringement against Aldi over the latter’s own-brand cloudy lemon cider and its packaging. The appeals court ruled that, although Aldi shoppers were not confused into thinking it was Thatchers’ product, the retailer gained an unfair advantage by evoking the Somerset cider brand’s product.
Cosmetics are especially prone to duping, thanks to the visual impact of TikTok and Instagram. A discount brand does not need to risk a legal breach by openly claiming to have duplicated a product: social media users will do so on its behalf, often with videos of how the products compare, on price as well as quality.
This has not hurt Charlotte Tilbury too much: its UK-reported sales in 2023 were more than twice those in 2020, when Puig took its stake. But it has had enough. “The law does not sufficiently protect innovative brands like ours. If the UK doesn’t care for businesses that break new ground, how will the economy grow?” says chief executive Demetra Pinsent.
The company has taken legal action before, winning a UK copyright case against Aldi in 2019 over the retailer’s design of a make-up palette that the high court ruled was too close to its own Filmstar Bronze and Glow Palette. But rights can be hard to enforce: E.L.F. has just won a case in California in which it was accused of breaching trademarks with a mascara dupe.
Patents on cosmetic formulas, like those on new drugs, would be easier to uphold. Charlotte Tilbury says that its products contain some unique ingredients, and temporarily halted production of Hollywood Flawless Filter when one ran out. But it is hard to prove that a cosmetic is a patentable invention, not just a new concoction.
Last week’s judgment will help brands. The ruling that Aldi “rode on the coat-tails” of Thatchers’ marketing budget creates friction for retail duping. “This changes things for any supermarket that sails too close to the wind,” says Thomas Chartres-Moore, partner in Stephens Scown, the law firm that represented Thatchers.
Charlotte Tilbury’s “Legendary. For a Reason” campaign has a broader purpose. Whatever legal action it takes, it also needs to win hearts and minds, and it is clear from social media that many of its fans see little wrong with others trying to mimic its products. Duping is not just widespread, but popular.
Brands need a story as well as a portfolio of property rights to make their case. But the fact that others make the effort to dupe their products has a reassuring side. When its imitators move on to other brands, it really will be time for Charlotte Tilbury to worry.
