Intelligent brand protection in the era of “dupes”

Jellycat, the British luxury plush toy brand renowned for its ultra-soft and whimsical designs, has sued Next, Hamleys, and Bessie London in the High Court. At the time of writing, not all of Jellycat’s claims are yet public, but are likely to involve at least registered design and passing off claims against lookalike soft toys and bag charms.

Jellycat:

Bessie, Hamleys, Next copycats:

The soft toy market has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. Once defined by children’s products, it is now driven by design-led, highly shareable collectibles that resonate as strongly with adults. Jellycat capitalized on this shift, building value through a distinctive aesthetic—recognizable “cute” faces, textures, and emotional appeal—combined with limited releases, social media visibility, and broad gift appeal, particularly its Amuseables range of playful food and novelty designs. Jellycat limited editions often sell out within hours and command high prices. Such success inevitably attracts imitation.

Jellycat is a good example of a modern infringement problem, fuelled by social media. Historically, brand protection in the toy sector focused on counterfeits and enforcement was relatively straightforward: identify the infringing product and remove it from sale. Today, infringement is more nuanced. Imitation now comes not just from counterfeiters but from legitimate retailers producing lower-priced products that replicate the overall feel of a successful brand (often marketed to consumers as “dupes”). This may include similar proportions, mimicked facial expressions, muted color palettes, or naming conventions (“Bashful Bunny”) that evoke a premium brand without reproducing it.

At the same time, the speed of the market has accelerated dramatically. Viral toys can gain global traction within days through TikTok and Instagram, and copycat versions appear in online marketplaces almost immediately. By the time a brand identifies and enforces against these products, the commercial peak may already have passed. The result is a structural mismatch between traditional, reactive enforcement mechanisms and fast-moving infringement rooted in aesthetic imitation. Since the value of a brand like Jellycat lies in emotional connection, character design, and brand personality, dupes can be more commercially damaging than outright counterfeits.

This type of infringement demands a layered approach that goes beyond traditional trade marks into trade dress (packaging, look and feel), design rights (shapes, silhouettes), copyright (artistic features, embroidery, patterns), and passing off. Lookalikes have typically been difficult to enforce against in the UK because passing off requires deception, and consumers usually know they are not buying the genuine article. However, courts have recently been more willing to find in favor of brand owners based on design, copyright, and more creative trademark angles, especially where their products have clearly been “benchmarked” (Marks & Spencer prevailed against Aldi’s copycat festive gin bottles, Thatchers against Aldi’s cloudy lemon cider).

Litigation creates useful publicity and, if successful, precedents to help future enforcement. It may also be necessary in high-profile or high-value cases. But it is only one part of a broader strategy. Constant, global, digital infringement lifecycles require continuous monitoring, and brand protection is an ongoing operational function, not a periodic legal exercise.

Enforcement has shifted towards online marketplaces, now the primary battleground. Brands are investing in AI-powered image recognition tools and keyword monitoring to identify infringing listings at scale. This is especially important in a sector where the visual appearance of a product is often more distinctive than its name. Much enforcement takes place on platforms like Amazon using notice-and-takedown tools, and relationship building with platform operators is a key part of brand protection. Crucially, enforcement is becoming intelligence-led. Rather than pursue every infringing listing, brands prioritize high-impact threats—those that dominate search results, use brand names in metadata, or originate from repeat sellers. This targeted approach reflects the commercial realities of a high-volume, low-margin infringement environment.

Successful brands also design their products with enforcement in mind; the key asset is not just a name or logo but a cohesive and protectable aesthetic identity.

The challenges are particularly acute during periods of heightened consumer demand, such as Christmas or viral product launches. These moments create ideal conditions for copycats: high demand, time pressure on consumers, and increased online visibility.

Effective brand protection in these periods requires preparation. Brands must ensure their IP portfolios are aligned with upcoming launches, including protection for key product names and designs. Marketplace readiness is equally important, with enrolment in platform protection programs and monitoring systems established in advance. During peak periods, speed is critical. Brands need streamlined takedown processes, clear internal escalation protocols, and the ability to prioritize high-risk listings—particularly those that misuse brand names or pose potential safety risks.

Consumer-facing measures also play a role. Luxury sportswear brand Lululemon pioneered a “dupe swap” event, an unconventional strategy inviting consumers to trade in their cheaper imitations for the real thing. This approach combats the rise of copycat culture by highlighting superior product quality and reclaiming market share. Clear communication about authorized retailers and product authenticity can reduce confusion, particularly in a gifting context where purchasers may be less familiar with the brand. Interestingly, Hamleys is also an authorized Jellycat retailer, which brings an extra dimension to the pending lawsuit.

Dilution through imitation is one of the biggest risks now faced by markets defined by design and desirability. The brands best placed to succeed will be those that move beyond reactive enforcement and instead combine legal rights, product design, marketplace intelligence, and consumer engagement to protect and continually reinforce the distinctiveness that drives demand.

← Back to News