The drive for distinctiveness: How to outcompete the copycats
From supermarket shelves to TikTok's ‘dupe culture,’ leading brands are facing growing competition from products deliberately designed to evoke them. Jack Cousins investigates this phenomenon and explores how original brands can outcompete the copycats.
Take a close look in your local supermarket and you will almost certainly find a plethora of own-label lookalike products across all categories. Recent research by The Food Industry Association found that 92% of Americans buy store brands, with over half of shoppers reporting that their primary store's private brand selection is very or extremely important to their decision to shop there.
Consumer sentiment is much the same throughout Europe. One company that has capitalised on economic uncertainty is supermarket Aldi, which boasts a wide and popular range of inexpensive private labels in the UK. Its hazelnut chocolate spread Nutoka is sold in a wide, clear jar featuring a lowercase red wordmark on a white label. Stackz’s saddle-shaped crisps come in a tall cylindrical container. Birra Mapelli lager comes in a bottle depicting a moustachioed man outlined in green beneath an Italian flag.
This strategy of adopting design cues from market leaders has brought success, but it can also backfire. In 2022, Marks & Spencer and Aldi reached an out-of-court settlement following the infamous ‘caterpillar cake war.’ Three years later, the Court of Appeal found Aldi’s cloudy lemon cider brand Taurus had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of Thatchers. There’s also an ongoing lawsuit involving Mondelēz International, with the food and snack manufacturer claiming a variety of Aldi’s own-label brands have confusingly similar packaging to its products.
Laying down the law
With some copycat brands thriving and others being successfully sued, consumers may be wondering where the line is between inspiration and infringement. And why, if a company has invested in constructing and marketing a coherent identity, lookalikes are allowed at all.
Andy Lee is a partner and head of intellectual property litigation at British IP law firm Brandsmiths. He explains that, at the heart of the matter, there exists a balancing act for governments between rewarding innovation and ensuring competition can flourish.
“If you just had complete protectionism for IP rights, you'd end up with a load of monopolies and customers wouldn't have a choice,” Lee says. “But if you didn't have IP rights it would just be a free for all, and there would be less encouragement for people to build brands or products and generate money.”
As for where that line is drawn, context is crucial. Factors like what precisely has been copied, what a country’s IP law says and whether a brand is trademarked all play a key role. Unlike straightforward counterfeits, which seek to pass themselves off as the original, dupes generally position themselves as separate brands. This can make infringement harder to establish. Instead, courts must look at cases on their individual merits.
A good example of all the considerations that go into these cases once again involves Aldi. In 2014, cosmetics company Moroccanoil alleged that Aldi’s hair oil product ‘Miracle Oil’ amounted to passing off. The court found that Aldi had deliberately designed the product to evoke Moroccanoil, with similar turquoise and orange packaging, but that consumers were unlikely to mistake the two products or assume they shared a commercial connection.
The case illustrates why registering distinctive elements of a brand identity can be valuable. Lee explains, “You can obviously get registered trademarks for words and logos, but you can also get them for things such as packaging. Brands that think ahead and register their distinctive packaging have got a much stronger ability to get rid of these sorts of lookalike products.”
Another reason Lee believes this may be a good idea for brands nowadays is because of how quickly copycats can spread online. Cosmetics brands like MCoBeauty have found success in relying on a social-first marketing strategy to get the word out about their dupes. Its large online presence comes at a cost, however, and the Australian cosmetics brand has faced lawsuits on numerous occasions.
Though this may give the impression that market leaders are cracking down on copycats, “I don't think companies are more litigious than they ever were,” says Lee. “They're just dealing with a different problem.”
The psychology behind copycats
But is the efficacy of dupes that closely copy market leaders somewhat overblown? Dr Femke van Horen, professor of consumer behaviour at the Marketing Department of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, believes so. Relatively little was understood about what made a copycat strategy effective when she began researching 20 years ago, but Dr van Horen now says there’s a clearer picture.
She explains, “What I have shown in my research is actually counter to what was generally believed before I started this work: that actually those copycats that look very similar to the original brand are actually disliked, whereas copycats that are shifted in one way or another away from the leader brand are actually liked more.”
It was incorrectly once believed that the positive associations of a market leader’s design would transfer onto the dupe. Instead, it creates a comparison standard. For instance, a copycat with the iconic three Adidas stripes will make a consumer think of that brand and therefore assume that the copycat is inferior. Also, consumers can become suspicious of brands that closely imitate another and feel manipulated.
Moderately similar copycats therefore tend to be more successful. Dr van Horen extends this to the idea of ‘thematic imitation,’ where brands copy a theme rather than literal design features. If a company wanted to dupe Milka, for example, they would be better off adopting general themes of fresh Alpine milk, as opposed to using its distinct purple or brush-like wordmark.
Furthermore, one of Dr van Horen’s latest research pieces suggests issues of morality can also arise with imitation. If an original brand clearly communicates its high levels of product investment, its status as a small firm or its shared national identity with the consumer, then preference for the copycat may be reduced, as it is felt to harm the original brand.
While copycats can trip themselves up, there’s no doubt they can also be very successful. This is especially true in the era of ‘dupe culture,’ where the younger generations actively search for cheaper alternatives. And with dupes matching gen Z’s core values of inclusivity and accessibility, Dr van Horen goes as far as to suggest that it’s the leader brands who should reposition themselves.
The problem is compounded by a further study indicating that a dupe can actually benefit from advertising by the market leader that attempts to discredit it. It’s a tricky situation for original brands that’s unlikely to dissipate anytime soon, but Dr van Horen does have suggestions for how market leaders can hold their ground.
First, emphasise vulnerability. Consumers are less receptive to dupes when they are made aware of an original brand being, say, a family-run business that has invested heavily in developing its product.
Second, beware of out-of-category imitation. A decade ago, Haribo challenged Lindt over the appearance of its gold chocolate bear, which Haribo felt too closely resembled its Gold Bear logo. The German court ultimately found that gummy sweets and chocolate were sufficiently different products, so Haribo's claim failed. But Dr van Horen argues that out-of-category imitation can still be “very dangerous” for the original brand due to a freeriding effect.
But perhaps the most important advice is for leaders to protect and invest in distinctive features. “My research shows that feature imitations are disliked,” she says, “but that is only the case when a feature is very clearly, uniquely and strongly linked with the original brand. If you imitate something distinct, like a Coca-Cola bottle, it will not work.”
Be distinctive everywhere
While it might be assumed that most brands know this, few act on it. Research by Ipsos and Jones Knowles Ritchie (JKR) in 2023 tested key assets for over 500 brands, concluding that just 15% of these assets were “truly distinctive.” Brands were found to be particularly weak on slogans and colour.
However, JKR believes this doesn’t have to be the case; in fact, its company mantra is ‘Be Distinctive Everywhere.’ Lee Rolston, the global branding and design agency’s chief growth officer, believes that distinction equals growth.
“All the evidence we've got demonstrates its power in terms of growing market share and driving pricing power,” he says. “But even the world’s biggest brands are lucky if they've got more than one distinctive asset. If it's rare, it's valuable. And if it's valuable, there are people who want to dupe it.”
Rolston explains that distinctive design is all about the culmination of assets in a specific context. McDonald’s and Shell both use red and yellow, but their similarities end once you introduce that palette to a fries box with an ‘M’ on it, or to a shell icon atop a petrol station. Many brands attempt to copy KFC, for instance, but JKR’s recent rebrand focused on spotlighting the fast-food chain’s undeniable brand legacy, placing its highly recognisable bucket front-and-centre.
Another multinational that has faced hundreds, if not thousands, of imitators over its history is Coca-Cola. Slogans over the years such as "America's Real Choice" and “It's the Real Thing” have reflected a desire to reinforce the brand’s authenticity and originality. Yet when tasked with refreshing the soft drinks giant, JKR creative director Dave Balsamello felt its identity had lost consistency, and failed to feel like Coca-Cola.
To Balsamello, the project needed to boldly restate Coca-Cola’s values and refrain from trend-chasing, which he adds can hinder a brand’s distinctive credentials. The project’s strategy centred around the design philosophy ‘Iconic Everywhere,’ meaning wherever Coca-Cola shows up, it offers one unmistakable brand experience to consumers.
In practice, this meant amplifying its most recognisable and ownable assets. The red and white palette, Arden Square and Spencerian script were all amplified, as well as another element that had been somewhat sidelined.
“The Dynamic Ribbon is something that is so iconically Coke, but hadn't really been part of the brand for around 10 years,” Balsamello says. “To even just bring that back and put more energy into that asset was a big unlock that really helps make Coca-Cola feel more distinctive, and gives them more tools to flex.”
Now armed with what it hopes is an identity that is unmistakably Coca-Cola, the aim is to roll out the updated brand consistently across more than 200 markets. To help with this seismic task, the multinational has introduced a new immersive Brand Center that features AI-powered Design Intelligence tools.
The AI problem
While AI in this instance helps the original brand by supporting governance, craft and consistency for internal and external design teams, there is a rising concern that AI could also undermine the leaders. For instance, AI logo maker Logo.com has generated hundreds of millions of designs since its inception, but its terms and conditions make clear that it does not guarantee that generated logos are unique, original or registrable. The potential to reproduce existing design cues has never been greater.
Sukanya Wadhwa, an IP litigator and colleague of Andy Lee at Brandsmiths, has closely followed the evolving story of copyright law and AI. She cites a recent UK Government policy paper that considers how copyright must allow for the benefits of AI while also protecting the country’s world-leading creative industries. Its conclusion: wait and see how the market and technology develop before deciding how the law should change.
“It really does underpin the issue here because the creative industry is so important,” Wadhwa says. “And then you’ve got the AI industry, which we know the UK is trying to be at the forefront of, and we want to attract that business as well. But if we carry on protecting IP in the way that we are in the UK with absolutely no change, then it will be very difficult for the AI industry to grow.”
Wadhwa believes change will eventually be required, but agrees that waiting for the landscape to develop may be preferable to introducing poorly considered regulation. For now, she advises brands using AI to ensure they have appropriate indemnities and checks in place, and to be prepared for legal challenges over their outputs.
Meanwhile, Rolston and Balsamello aren’t too concerned about the impact AI might have on dupes copying brand assets. As AI is trained on the norm, they find its output is, by its very nature, indistinctive.
“What we've started doing when we're kicking off a project at JKR is asking, ‘What would AI do for this?’” Balsamello says. “It actually gives us all of the things we want to avoid, because it points to the things that are generic.”
Rolston adds, “We are going to be inundated with a lot of stuff that's very similar, so the opportunity for leaders is to double down on what is distinct to you – and then systemise and protect it.”
This article was taken from Transform magazine Q3, 2026. You can subscribe to the print edition here.
