Pryor Cashman Partner Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme, Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Group, was quoted in a World IP Review article examining the recent jury verdict in Deckers (UGG) v. Quince, a closely watched dispute that tested the strength of design patent and trade dress claims against so-called “dupe” products.

In the article, “UGG Owner v Quince: 5 Takeaways for Brands Battling Dupes,” Dyan discussed the evolving legal standards courts are applying when evaluating copycat products and intellectual property enforcement strategies. Commenting on the distinction between lawful dupes and infringing products, she noted:

“That line will always depend on the facts, but courts seem to be approaching it with more nuance than many brand owners would prefer.”

Dyan also emphasized the importance of targeted and well-supported enforcement efforts by brand owners, explaining:

“Luxury and heritage brands absolutely have the right to police their marks, but they need to be precise about it.”

She further noted that intellectual property enforcement should focus on consumer confusion rather than market competition, stating:

“Enforcement should be tied to a genuine likelihood of confusion, not just concern over losing market share.”

The article explores the implications of the jury’s decision, which found that Quince copied the design of an UGG boot but ultimately ruled Deckers’ design patent invalid. The outcome highlights the challenges brands face when enforcing intellectual property rights against dupe products and underscores the need for strong, defensible IP portfolios supported by compelling evidence.

Read the full article using the link below (subscription may be required).