Australian cosmetics giant MCoBeauty has attracted global attention for its strikingly similar beauty dupes, but the company has kept the details of its product development process out of the spotlight — until now.
Although the multi-million-dollar business has faced legal hurdles before for its copycat cosmetics, MCoBeauty has a rigorous process in place to ensure its lipsticks don't cause lawsuits.
This is how MCoBeauty creates its own versions of popular cosmetics from start to finish while keeping itself on the right side of the law, according to its founder and lawyer.
Hang on, what's a dupe?
If you're a beauty beginner, the word "dupe" in cosmetics is short for duplicate, and refers to a more affordable makeup product that looks and wears the same as a higher-end alternative.
It's important to note that "dupe" in the beauty world doesn't mean the same as the traditional definition of the word, which is generally defined as tricking or deceiving someone.
That said, dupes aren't limited to the beauty industry — the word is used to describe cheaper alternatives to more expensive or higher-quality items.
The origin of dupe in this context goes back to about 2008, and was first used in gaming lingo before being adopted in the online make-up and beauty communities, according to KnowYourMeme.
But in the past two years or so, the word has become a catch-all on social media to describe less expensive alternatives of countless products, ranging from water bottles, lounge wear, furniture, cleaning products, kitchen appliances and even cars.
And given the cost-of-living crisis has people being cautious about what they spend their hard-earned money on, it's no surprise that dupes have gone mainstream.
What is MCoBeauty?
MCoBeauty is an Australian cosmetics company, created by Sydney entrepreneur Shelley Sullivan to complement her original foray into the beauty industry with ModelCo, which she launched in 2002.
Ms Sullivan created the beauty brand with "masstige" in mind, which refers to marketing affordable products in a luxurious way — and inspired its "luxe for less" slogan.
MCoBeauty began selling its first products in 2018, and gradually gained traction in beauty circles, but the brand went viral in April 2023 after releasing its own version of a cult cosmetic.
The product in question was "Flawless Glow" — its version of UK cosmetics brand Charlotte Tilbury's "Hollywood Flawless Filter" — and was quickly labelled a dupe, particularly because of its similar packaging.
In the months since, MCoBeauty has earned a reputation as a cosmetics brand that dupes popular products — although the brand says duping is a marketing strategy, not its whole business model.
"This brand is all about luxe for less and providing quality products at a luxe-for-less price. Duping is what we call a pillar of our marketing strategy, and definitely not at the top of our funnel of how we market," Ms Sullivan said.
Regardless, its strategic duping has MCoBeauty on track to record $250 million in sales this year, and the company has since expanded to the United States.
How does MCoBeauty create dupes?
When the ABC sat down with MCoBeauty founder and CEO Shelley Sullivan to find out, she said it began when enough of her customers asked for a product.
"We have a very stringent process that we go through when we decide that we want to launch a product," Ms Sullivan explained.
"Before we even go into design, we have some research done on the product, the formulations, the packaging, the customer base, the outer packaging, everything to do with the product.
"We have a whole product development team of about 10 people, and we have a great external lawyer … and we have a look at the product packaging, and then we go through a process of seeing that … there's no trademarks and there's no patents."
MCoBeauty's external lawyer is Len Mancini, who shared with the ABC what his role looks like in the production process.
"I get shown a product conception, and I will look at that, take it away and conduct a lot of searches," he said.
"I will search registered design databases, patent databases, trademark databases in Australia, overseas, all around the world, trying to work out what exactly it is the original product maker has protected."
But the trademark and intellectual property attorney said the final decision isn't as simple as: if the original brand hasn't protected it, MCoBeauty can get away with it.
"No, it's not like that. Certainly the absence of trademarks comes into that equation of what the final product looks like, because if they're not trademarks, then you're not going to infringe a trademark by putting a product into the market," he said.
Those trademarks, he said, don't just include brand names, but also cover shapes, logos, colours and even packaging.
In simple terms, Mr Mancini's job is to look at a product, and find out how much of it is protected by the original brand so MCoBeauty knows where the legal boundaries are early on.
How did MCoBeauty dupe Charlotte Tilbury?
In the case of MCoBeauty's viral dupe of Charlotte Tilbury, Ms Sullivan said the priority was the formula, because that's what her customer base was requesting.
"Customers really wanted a formula that delivered that glow result, so we were more focused on the formula than we were the packaging at the time," she said.
"We do a lot of research groups and customers really wanted to pull out that little bit of premium luxury from their bag, but at a quarter of the price."
On Mr Mancini's end, his searches concluded that there were key elements of Charlotte Tilbury's Hollywood Flawless Filter that MCoBeauty could also use without issue.
"Let's start with the word 'flawless'. Charlotte Tilbury does not own the rights to the world 'flawless'," he explained.
"Charlotte Tilbury, from recollection, has a trademark for the phrase 'Hollywood Flawless Filter', but using the word 'flawless' is not an infringement on that trademark."
There were also no issues with MCoBeauty using a similar rounded glass bottle with a fluted gold lid, but Mr Mancini said the company had to change one particular asset.
"That diamond is actually a protected asset," he said, referring to the gold diamond shape that features Charlotte Tilbury's "CT" logo.
"But there's no diamond here, there's no CT … there's actually quite a big distinction between those two.
"There's no trademark infringement happening in this instance, despite what common people might think when they just look at these things."
In fact, MCoBeauty ended up trademarking a number of elements of its Charlotte Tilbury dupe.
(Separately, Charlotte Tilbury wouldn't comment on the legality of the dupe when contacted by the ABC, but said duplicate products can never replace the real thing.)
Are MCoBeauty's dupes legal?
Yes, but the cosmetics company has had to learn this the hard way — it's been sued twice for releasing similar products, both in 2021.
The first lawsuit was filed by American beauty brand Tarte over its concealer packaging, and the second was brought by Australian business Chemcorp, which alleged the company had infringed on its 1000Hour brand and packaging.
The business reached a confidential settlement in both cases, and MCoBeauty ended up changing elements of its own products.
"We settled those quite quickly, they never made it to court," Ms Sullivan said about both cases.
"And then we made sure that we buttoned up our IP and trademark process."
What about the formulas of MCoBeauty's dupes?
Where product formulas are concerned, Mr Mancini said it's hardly ever an issue in the beauty industry.
"In the cosmetics industry, there's not a lot of innovation in the actual formulations," he said.
"There's very, very, very, very, very few patents for truly innovative, new formulations or new methods of delivery. They're all variations of a theme."
In other words, there are no real groundbreaking cosmetic formulas in the industry — but if there were, that's where patents would come into play.
"Patents are almost not used in this industry whatsoever, because there really isn't that level of innovation," Mr Mancini said.
What is the quality of MCoBeauty like?
To answer this, the ABC asked Melbourne-based makeup artist and content creator Claire Bridgett — who has been outspoken about MCoBeauty in the past — to compare Charlotte Tilbury's product with MCoBeauty's version.
"They give a similar result. You are going to see a slight difference in formulation of course, and a few people do say 'oh MCo is using cheaper ingredients' but at the end of the day, I can't make a comment on that. I'm not a chemist," she said.
"I think it's whatever works for the person, and the reality is, the result is going to be similar. It just depends if you want to pay a little bit more."
The price difference is a major consideration for consumers, as is accessibility.
Charlotte Tilbury's product costs $70 and is sold exclusively through beauty retailer Mecca, while MCoBeauty's version retails for $35 and is sold at Woolworths, Big W, and Chemist Warehouse stores around the country.
As far as dupe quality is concerned though, Ms Bridgett said MCoBeauty's version was one of its better products.
"Because this is quite a subtle product, the differences are going to be quite small … but I feel like with their other products, you can see a bigger difference," she said.
Working in the industry, Ms Bridgett acknowledged there's different opinions when it comes to the quality of products, but it's ultimately up to the individual.
"I think now, especially with the cost-of-living crisis, people are loving this, they're loving the idea of a dupe," she said.
"They don't care if it's copying anyone or ripping anyone off. They just want the cheaper product that's going to do the job."