A Global Fight: Dupes, Counterfeits, & Artists

June 26, 2026

About the Image: Thomas Rowlandson, “High Fun for John Bull, or the Republicans Put to their Last Shift” (November 12, 1798)

By KimberMarie Faircloth

People often quote Oscar Wilde’s famous statement that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” but then forget the rest: “…that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” Such “sincere flattery” falls flat in a courtroom when dealing with another’s intellectual property (IP). In 2026, it has never been easier to steal from artists and small business owners. Creators, particularly artists who make their livelihood from their art, can be easy targets for scammers and counterfeiters. The silver lining, however, is that the very same technology that is used to copy can also help to catch copying and enforce against it.

For anyone who is chronically online, the likelihood of coming across a small business or creator who is facing infringement is high. Lauren Horn, an art teacher in Texas and creator of This is Not a Sketchbook: It’s an Art Class, took to her social media pages to help educate her followers on how to identify her authentic sketchbooks.^[1] “Well, TikTok had been my happy place but now there’s [] some scam account selling their version of my book on TikTok shop. So I’m gonna teach you how to spot the differences between mine [] and then all these scam ones.”^[2] In her post, Horn proceeds to clearly demonstrate what to look for: reviewing how many items have been sold and by which accounts, prices for what it costs Horn to order her workbooks from the printer, and lack of quality in the scam books.^[3] Horn also owns a registered trademark for her workbook title, THIS IS NOT A SKETCHBOOK (U.S. Reg. 8083571).^[4]

Horn isn’t alone. Maggie Stephenson, a Florida-based illustrator, has built an illustrious career illustrating for fashion and lifestyle brands internationally.^[5] Her self-described style includes “considered color palettes, rich textures, and playful shapes inspired by nature and human connection.”^[6] In 2022, she noticed that fast-fashion retailer, Shein, had blatantly used her designs on their products without authorization and falsified copyright management information.^[7] Shein also made headlines in 2023, when 3 artists filed a lawsuit against it for copyright infringement and violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) act.^[8] This was eventually settled privately in 2025.^[9]

But the list continues of small artists discovering that their designs or artwork are being sold at a quarter of the price (or maybe even less) elsewhere. Attempting to stop the infringement introduces a whole other problem. Stubborn copycats attempting to evade enforcement compounded by tedious enforcement processes required by large online platforms can make it feel impossible for artists to protect their works.^[10] This is why businesses in 2026 must have a multi-layered brand protection strategy – regardless of whether they are a solo artist or a large corporation. Without approaching brand protection as a multi-layered strategy, business owners will find themselves in a vicious game of whack-a-mole with ambiguous corporate structures (or perhaps even singular copycats).

The Problem

Counterfeits are not a new problem.^[11] However, the rise of ‘dupe’ culture is particularly recent and with it has come a legal gray area since dupes are not inherently illegal, unlike counterfeits. The advent of technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and print-on-demand further helps consumers satiate their demand for dupes of coveted products for a cheaper price.^[12] But consumers are often blind to the nuance of what they are purchasing and may end up with counterfeits that ultimately pirate the ingenuity of the original creator.

Most people have a baseline understanding that one can own copyrights for certain creations like drawings, paintings, and photography. The same goes for trademarking elements of your brand or patenting a unique design. These are critical tools that every brand owner, regardless of industry, should be aware of and include in their IP toolkit when they are able to. Without registrations of your IP, enforcement becomes incredibly more difficult.^[13]

What most people do not generally understand are the differences between counterfeits, gray market goods, and dupes. Counterfeits are illicit copies of products, documents, or currency.^[14] To traffic in counterfeits is a criminal offense that could result in a fine of up to $2,000,000 and prison for 10 years (or more depending on the number of violations and whether serious bodily harm or counterfeits involving military goods and services were involved).^[15] What makes a counterfeit a counterfeit is the use of a false mark “that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered.”^[16] Trademark owners also have remedies available under the Lanham act to enforce their marks against counterfeiters.^[17]

Gray market goods are products that were made legally but ended up outside of their planned distribution channels, usually by illicit means.^[18] Here, trademarks play a critical role in enforcement as well. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1114 provides remedies for trademark owners who find their registered mark is being used without their consent.^[19] The Lanham Act also has provisions protecting against the importation of goods with infringing marks as well as false origin or description of goods.^[20] From there, federal regulations such as the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.S § 1526) and 19 C.F.R 133 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations govern the treatment of such infringing goods upon identification (usually through seizure, forfeiture, and destruction).^[21]

Dupes are products legally made by competitors that encompass similar colors, designs, or recipes as original creators. This is a nuanced area of the law that has heralded more attention with the rising prominence of dupe culture. It is not illegal to produce a competitive product. However, the line between a product being competitive and being infringement can be dangerously thin when the competitor is drawing largely on protected designs, colors, branding, and composition of original products.

Artists who depend on their creations for their livelihood must stay incredibly vigilant when it comes to protecting their intellectual property. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) most recently estimated the global counterfeit trade to account for $467 billion.^[22] Another aspect of counterfeiting that consumers may not be aware of is that there are multi-million dollar operations behind many of these sellers.^[23] Stealing IP is profitable; that’s why people do it.

Last year, Pandora, a popular Danish jewelry retailer, teamed up with Amazon and successfully prosecuted a ring of criminal counterfeiters who will serve 5 years in prison along with paying fines.^[24] In New York, one of the largest counterfeit seizures for the Southern District of New York occurred in 2023 when two men were arrested in connection with trafficking counterfeit goods – approximately 219,000 counterfeit goods were seized and estimated at a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $1.03 billion.^[25] Counterfeiting is certainly not a victimless crime and when combined with technology like AI, it has also become much more complex.

How to Fight Fakes

There are ways to fight back against creations being pirated. Where the fight gets difficult, however, especially for small businesses and standalone operations like solo artists and creators, is the budget. There are methods for protecting branding and IP across the spectrum from free to expensive, usually with the expensive options being a last resort. Below is a list sorting these from cheapest to priciest with respect to fighting fakes:

Consumer Education: it costs nothing but a little bit of time to post to followers and consumers about how to identify counterfeit versions of products versus authentic ones. This is the approach that artist and teacher Lauren Horn took by posting on her TikTok account the differences between her authentic sketchbook and those that copycat stores were selling.^[26]

Quick Response (QR) Codes and Unique Identifiers: planning ahead to incorporate unique identifiers in packaging, whether physical or digital, is a relatively low-cost mechanism as well. From holograms and QR codes to blockchain technology, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has a free online resource that can assist business owners in determining which type of anti-counterfeiting technology is best suited for their product.^[27]

Registering IP and Conducting Takedowns: registering IP and conducting enforcement (i.e. online takedowns of infringing listings on platforms) is probably the most cost-effective strategy that can result in direct de-listing of infringing content and products. Initial investments are necessary to register IP such as trademarks, patents, and copyrights.^[28] They also require time for the respective applications to be examined, which can range anywhere from months to years.^[29] Once registrations are obtained, online enforcement has a higher likelihood of success. Conducting takedowns can also be done independently or with the help of third-parties (such as online enforcement programs or attorneys).

Demand Letter Programs: for repeat infringers that continue to infringe and refuse to comply, sending a demand letter can be an effective escalation strategy. However, it also puts the infringer on notice – meaning the infringer now has time to switch their listings and bank accounts to evade enforcement. Business owners should not send these out without being ready to escalate if the recipient of the letter fails to comply. This is why working with an attorney is key as they can provide assistance in strategizing on when to rely on demand letters and when to consider litigation.

‘Schedule A’ Litigation: a more effective and efficient version of litigation to tackle many infringers at once.^[30] The name is derived from the first exhibit included with the complaint, the Schedule A, where the list of defendants is included.^[31] Courts have grown more skeptical of this mechanism since some parties have abused it.^[32] However, it is still a viable and effective option when used properly and can assist in not only removing infringing listings from platforms but recovering money to cover legal fees and damages.

Intellectual Property Litigation: naturally, litigation is usually the most expensive option. This is where larger businesses have an upper hand in defending their IP as they have the financial resources to pursue it where necessary. However, litigation may still be viable for smaller business owners and artists who are facing gross infringement of their IP.^[33] Non-Schedule A litigation can still involve multiple defendants. For any type of litigation, there is a risk that a court will rule in the defendant’s favor. But the upsides of potentially obtaining a court order against the defendant, recovering funds via damages, and the inevitable reputation of taking one’s IP seriously (which can have a chilling effect on other copycats) can be worth it for certain cases. Again, discerning these options is why attorneys are available.

Business owners are encouraged to see intellectual property not only as a form of income or asset but also as a form of insurance against infringers. Obtaining registrations for key elements and works should no longer be seen as ‘nice to have’ but rather as a ‘must have’ for business in our global landscape. More importantly, strategizing ways to weave in brand protection at different levels of your business (from creation to sale) will help build a defense against the fakes of our time.

About the Author

KimberMarie Faircloth is an intellectual property attorney specializing in brand protection and online enforcement. She currently practices at ESCA Legal, where she assists with foreign and U.S. trademark enforcement, cease and desist programs, and IP litigation support. She holds a J.D. from Elon University School of Law, where she served as Symposium Editor for the Elon Law Review (2023), and a Bachelor of Science in Anthropology, magna cum laude, from the College of Charleston – a foundation that informed her interest in the intersection of law, art, and cultural heritage.

Select References

1. Lauren Horn, TikTok (April 23, 2025), http://www.tiktok.com/@laurenhornart/video/7496593106784062766. ↑
2. Id. ↑
3. Id. ↑
4. THIS IS NOT A SKETCHBOOK, Registration No. 8083571. ↑
5. Maggie Stephenson, Maggie Stephenson, About, www.maggiestephenson.com/about (last accessed April 19, 2026). ↑
6. Id. ↑
7. Jeanel Alvarado, Shein Faces $100 Million Lawsuit by Artist over ‘Stolen’ Design, Retail Boss (Mar. 18, 2023), www.retailboss.co/shein-sued-by-artist-for-100-million-over-stolen-design/. ↑
8. Complaint, Perry v. Shein Distribution Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05551-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2023). ↑
9. Shein and Independent Designers Reach Settlement in High-Profile Copyright Infringement Case, Legal News Feed (Sep. 9, 2025), www.legalnewsfeed.com/2025/09/09/shein-and-independent-designers-reach-settlement-in-high-profile-copyright-infringement-case/. ↑
10. “Aileen filed a complaint to Temu’s intellectual property protection team and the listing was taken down. But a few weeks later, another version popped again from a different Temu vendor. This version was listed for €5.38, and the listing said 741 bags had been sold.” Andrew R. Chow, Designers Are Accusing Temu of Selling Copies of Their Work, TIME (Jan. 16, 2024), www.time.com/6342387/temu-copy-work/. ↑
11. “Counterfeiting is a crime that has existed for millennia, but it really came to the fore in the U.S. during the Civil War, when both the Union and Confederate governments, in an attempt to subvert the other, counterfeited each other’s currency. By the war’s end, nearly one-third of all currency circulating the U.S. was counterfeit, undermining a recovering economy where physical currency was what most used to do business.” Donald J. Mihalek, How the Crime of Counterfeiting Is Making a Comeback, ABC News (Mar. 12, 2024), www.abcnews.com/US/counterfeiting-modern-age/story?id=108005573. ↑
12. Alexandra J. Roberts, Dupes, 14 N.Y.U. J. Intell. Prop & Ent. L. 94, 96-103 (2025). ↑
13. Intellectual Property Enforcement, U.S. Dep’t of State, www.state.gov/intellectual-property-enforcement (last accessed April 17, 2026). ↑
14. Counterfeit, Cornell L. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/counterfeit (last accessed April 17, 2026). ↑
15. 18 U.S.C.S § 2320(b). ↑
16. 18 U.S.C.S § 2320(f)(1). ↑
17. 15 U.S.C.S § 1114, 1116-1117. ↑
18. Adam Hayes, Understanding the Gray Market: Trading Basics and Risks, Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/graymarket.asp (last visited June 5, 2026). ↑
19. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1114. ↑
20. 15 U.S.C.S § 1124, 1125. ↑
21. 19 U.S.C.S § 1526; 19 C.F.R 133. ↑
22. Global Trade in Fake Goods Reached USD 467 Billion, Posing Risks to Consumer Safety and Compromising Intellectual Property, OECD (May 7, 2025), www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/05/global-trade-in-fake-goods-reached-USD-467-billion-posing-risks-to-consumer-safety-and-compromising-intellectual-property.html. ↑
23. Four Defendants Arrested in Multimillion-Dollar Counterfeit Goods Trafficking Scheme, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, E.D.N.Y. (Aug. 12, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/four-defendants-arrested-multimillion-dollar-counterfeit-goods-trafficking-scheme. ↑
24. Harriet Whitaker, Pandora and Amazon Shut Down Jewellery Criminal Network, Professional Jeweler (June 30, 2025), www.professionaljeweller.com/pandora-amazon-shut-criminal-network/. ↑
25. Largest-Ever Counterfeit Goods Seizures Result in Trafficking Charges Against Two Individuals, U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Nov. 15, 2023), www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/largest-ever-counterfeit-goods-seizures-result-trafficking-charges-against-two. ↑
26. Lauren Horn, TikTok (April 23, 2025), www.tiktok.com/@laurenhornart/video/7496593106784062766. ↑
27. Anti-Counterfeiting and Anti-Piracy Technology Guide, Eur. Union Intell. Prop. Off., https://euipo.europa.eu/anti-counterfeiting-and-anti-piracy-technology-guide/ (last accessed April 17, 2026). ↑
28. Trademark Process, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-process (last accessed Apr. 17, 2026); Patent Process Overview, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/patent-process-overview (last accessed Apr. 14, 2026); Registration, U.S. Copyright Off., https://www.copyright.gov/registration/ (last accessed Apr. 14, 2026). ↑
29. Patent Pendency, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html (last accessed Apr. 17, 2026); Trademark Application Timeline, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/application-timeline (last accessed Apr. 17, 2026); Registration: Processing Times FAQs, U.S. Copyright Off. (last accessed Apr. 17, 2026), https://www.copyright.gov/registration/docs/processing-times-faqs.pdf. ↑
30. See Jen Nacht, Schedule A Litigation: Strategies and Best Practices for Online Enforcement, IP Watchdog (April 16, 2026), www.ipwatchdog.com/2026/04/16/schedule-litigation-strategies-best-practices-online-enforcement/. ↑
31. Id. ↑
32. Judge’s Critique of Sealed Filings Sparks Renewed Debate on Anti-Counterfeiting Litigation Practices, Legal News Feed (Aug. 20, 2025), https://legalnewsfeed.com/2025/08/20/judges-critique-of-sealed-filings-sparks-renewed-debate-on-anti-counterfeiting-litigation-practices/. ↑
33. A Guide to Intellectual Property Litigation, Thomson Reuters (Dec. 23, 2022), www.legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/guide-to-intellectual-property-litigation/. ↑