Cosmetics have long been an integral part of people’s lives, serving as a tool to boost self-esteem and exude confidence.
"If you're sad, if you are disappointed in love, put on your makeup, give yourself some beauty care, put on lipstick, and attack."
-Coco Chanel
This sentiment captures the transformative power of makeup, highlighting how cosmetics can be a game-changer in a woman's life, boosting confidence and redefining self-expression. Huda Kattan, an Iraqi-American entrepreneur and the founder of Huda Beauty, built her brand after overcoming a maze of insecurities. She faced bullying, was pressured to tone down her makeup, and was urged to conform to societal standards. But instead of breaking, she rose stronger—launching her brand and elevating it to a global phenomenon.
As the world progressed and beauty emerged as a key confidence booster, the industry advanced by introducing skincare products and cosmetics for men while emphasizing the importance of inclusivity. Beauty sales across the country have demonstrated remarkable growth, with reports indicating a more than 10% increase in dollar sales.
The Rise of Beauty Dupes: Affordable or Imitation?
The beauty industry thrives on innovation, constantly evolving to address new concerns. Just as a pimple pops out the market introduces a product designed not only to conceal it but also to prevent future breakouts, reflecting the industry's dynamic and ever-adapting nature. Now that cosmetics have become an integral part of people's lives, brands bear the responsibility of maintaining the purity and quality of the ingredients they use, ensuring they are safe and user-friendly. This commitment to high standards often justifies the premium pricing of luxury beauty products. This is precisely why dupes have emerged in the market. The price of a cosmetic product is often inversely proportional to its accessibility, making affordability a key factor in the rise of dupes. These products serve as budget-friendly alternatives, offering similar aesthetics and functionality without the hefty price tag. While dupes are not inherently harmful or toxic, it is often assumed that lower production costs may result in compromised ingredient quality, replacing high-grade components with cheaper substitutes that may pose long-term health risks to consumers. Many of these products contain toxic chemicals such as arsenic and carcinogenic compounds, which can lead to adverse reactions like contact dermatitis and other serious skin and health issues over time.
Furthermore, Phil Lewis, Director General of the UK-based Anti-Counterfeiting Group, highlighted that counterfeiting plays a significant role in fueling organized crime and international fraud, posing substantial risks to the global economy and consumer safety.
The cosmetic industry features a broad range of options, with premium brands such as La Mer and Cle de Peau, where prices range from $150 to $500, and more accessible brands like Maybelline New York and Neutrogena, offering products priced between $5 and $40, making them easily affordable for a wide audience. While these products often compromise on quality, the well-known adage "you get what you pay for" holds, making dupes an increasingly popular choice among budget-conscious shoppers. While consumers may readily embrace these cost-effective alternatives, the real question is how receptive original brands will be to these replicas flooding the market. Though dupes come without a strain on the pocket, the conversation around their efficacy and safety isn’t quite as glamorous. Luxury beauty brands invest heavily in R&D to uphold quality and ensure user safety, and their innovations deserve protection.
This blog discusses the recent legal dispute between Benefit Cosmetics and E.l.f. Cosmetics over mascara is a perfect example of the ongoing push-and-pull between high-end brands and their budget-friendly counterparts, highlighting the delicate balance between competition and innovation in the beauty industry.
Benefit vs. Elf Mascara: The Legal Battle Explained
Benefit Cosmetics was founded in 1976 by sisters Jean and Jane Ford in San Francisco with a vision to lift people’s spirits through makeup, offering innovative and redefined beauty products. “They believed laughter is the best cosmetic and turned the so-serious makeup industry on its head.” The brand quickly gained widespread recognition, cementing its reputation and eventually securing its place in the luxury cosmetics market. As a prestige beauty brand, Benefit positions its products at a higher price point compared to mass-market cosmetics, which focus on affordability. While the average market price for cosmetics hovers around $11, Benefit’s products range from $15 to $65, reflecting its emphasis on premium quality, innovation, and branding.
On the other hand, E.l.f. Cosmetics fall into the mass-market category, offering budget-friendly alternatives without compromising accessibility. Found in 2004 by Joseph Samah and Scott Vincent, this Oakland, California-based brand specializes in a diverse range of beauty and skincare products, including makeup, professional tools, and bathing essentials. With its affordable pricing and inclusive approach, e.l.f. has made beauty more accessible to a wide audience, bridging the gap between quality and affordability. It began in 2004 and today it has a market cap of $4.94 Billion. The dispute arose when Benefit Cosmetics accused e.l.f. Cosmetics of trademark and trade dress infringement, claiming that e.l.f.'s Lash ‘N Roll mascara closely resembled Benefit’s Roller Lash mascara, along with its Hook ‘N Roll brush.
Benefit introduced Roller Lash mascara in 2015, designed not just to thicken eyelashes like most mascaras but to curl them. It featured a curved brush head with soft bristles, incorporating a pink and black colour scheme, and was branded as the Hook ‘N Roll brush. The mascara’s signature packaging consisted of a black base, pink cap, vertical pink script along the base, a ribbed collar, and a diamond-textured cap. Benefit has achieved global popularity, largely due to its aggressive marketing strategies, which include social media influencer collaborations, billboards, and in-store promotions.
Then, in December 2022, e.l.f. Cosmetics launched its curling mascara—Lash ‘N Roll. The initial design featured an all-pink base and cap, but due to production difficulties, it was later revised to a black base with a pink cap and pink lettering running vertically along the base. Unlike Benefit’s Roller Lash, Lash ‘N Roll lacks a textured cap, ribbed collar, or tapering.
Although Benefit’s claim of similarity is fairly strong Roller Lash and Lash ‘N Roll sound and appear alike, and the product designs share common elements. E.l.f. Cosmetics presented a compelling counterargument and pointed out that while "Lash ‘N Roll" appears prominently on its mascara packaging, "Hook ‘N Roll" is not featured on the primary packaging of Roller Lash. Instead, Benefit includes "Hook ‘N Roll" only on the side or back of its secondary packaging in a smaller font compared to "Roller Lash" or the Benefit logo.
E.l.f. acknowledged that Roller Lash was commercially successful and admitted to taking inspiration from it but denied any intent to create a direct dupe. The company asserted that Lash ‘N Roll’s name was chosen to align with its other music-themed mascaras, Lash It Loud and Lash Beats.
In January 2023, Benefit Cosmetics identified what it believed to be trademark and trade dress infringement by e.l.f. Cosmetics in the marketing and sale of "Lash ‘N Roll." In response, Benefit formally asserted its registered trademark and common law trade dress rights, demanding that e.l.f. discontinue their use. When e.l.f. did not comply, Benefit escalated the matter by filing a lawsuit under the Lanham Act - the cornerstone of U.S. trademark law since 1946- along with claims under California common law.
Benefit argued that Lash ‘N Roll’s similarities to Roller Lash would likely confuse consumers. Although Benefit successfully established that its trademark was protectable, it failed to prove that the similarities between the products were substantial enough to cause consumer confusion.
The Trademark & Trade Dress Debate
A trademark is a form of intellectual property that establishes a distinct identity for a brand, setting it apart from competitors. This is governed under section 29 of the Trademark Act,1999 and 15 U.S. Code § 1114 of the Lanham Act of US. On the other hand, trade dress refers to the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that serves as a recognizable identifier. For instance, the glass bottle of Coca-Cola has a unique shape that distinguishes it from other beverages. A similar situation arose in Sheree Cosmetics, LLC v. Kylie Cosmetics, LLC, where Sheree Cosmetics sued Kylie Jenner’s brand for allegedly copying the name and packaging of its eyeshadow "Born to Sparkle." One of the shades in Jenner’s eyeshadow set also carried the same name. However, the case was eventually dismissed, and both parties settled through mediation.
But what qualifies as infringement? In cases of trademark infringement, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the defendant used a confusingly similar design or packaging that creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.
In the present case, the packaging of both products features notable differences. Benefit’s Roller Lash secondary packaging incorporates diamond-shaped detailing on the cap, while e.l.f.’s Lash ‘N Roll does not. Although both products use a pink and black colour scheme, e.l.f. argued that it employs a different shade of pink and includes a window on its packaging that displays the product inside—a feature absent from Benefit’s design. E.l.f. further contended that pink and black are common colour choices in the cosmetics industry, citing other brands that have adopted similar trade dress elements. These differences, according to e.l.f., make both products distinct and easily recognizable in the marketplace.
The Court’s Verdict: When Similarity Isn’t Infringement
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of e.l.f. Cosmetics, stating that Benefit failed to prove a likelihood of consumer confusion. E.l.f.’s expert, Sarah Butler, conducted a consumer survey that found only a 5% net confusion rate which is quite an insignificant figure. The court noted that Benefit’s Roller Lash is a prestige product sold exclusively in high-end retailers such as Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Sephora, and Ulta Beauty, whereas E.l.f. targets the mass market, selling its products in drugstores and grocery stores.
The court also recognized that cosmetics consumers are generally brand-conscious and make informed purchasing decisions, further reducing the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, Benefit’s commercial success having generated $300 million in domestic sales has reinforced its brand recognition, making it highly unlikely that consumers would mistake a $6 mascara for a $29 prestige product.
Finally, the court addressed E.l.f.'s acknowledgement of taking inspiration from Benefit, stating that while copying a product may raise ethical concerns, it does not automatically indicate an intent to deceive consumers. Instead, the court found that E.l.f. merely sought to offer an affordable alternative rather than create a misleading imitation.
What This Means for the Future of Beauty Brands
In Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. E.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc., after thoroughly examining the facts and arguments presented by both parties, the court ruled that similarities alone do not constitute infringement unless they create consumer confusion. Since E.L.F.’s Lash ‘N Roll did not meet this threshold, the case was decided in its favour.
The beauty industry has long witnessed the rise of dupes—affordable alternatives to high-end products. While some argue that dupes make beauty more accessible, others believe they dilute the uniqueness and exclusivity of luxury brands. In this case, the court recognized that E.l.f. did not attempt to mislead consumers into thinking they were purchasing a Benefit product but instead aimed to offer a cost-effective alternative.
Ultimately, the cosmetics industry remains a space where dupes will always find their place. It is up to both buyers and sellers to navigate the market responsibly, ensuring that innovation is respected rather than exploited, while also making beauty accessible to all.
While some brands create safe and ethical dupes, blindly chasing inexpensive alternatives can sometimes do more harm than good. Many low-cost beauty products compromise on quality, safety, and ingredient transparency, posing potential risks to your skin and health. Always research before purchasing and opt for trusted, well-formulated alternatives that prioritize both affordability and consumer safety. Beauty should be accessible, not harmful—so choose wisely!
コメント