Yesterday, according to Bloomberg, in a pivotal legal battle over alleged trademark and trade dress infringement, E.l.f. Cosmetics has successfully defended its Lash ‘N Roll mascara against claims made by Benefit Cosmetics.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in California ruled that E.l.f.’s product does not infringe on Benefit’s Roller Lash mascara or its associated trademarks, including the “Hook ‘N Roll” trademark. The case, which followed a six-day bench trial in August 2024, concluded with Judge Richard Seeborg’s finding that Benefit Cosmetics had failed to prove that E.l.f.’s mascara caused consumer confusion.
Benefit Cosmetics filed the lawsuit in February 2023, claiming that E.l.f.’s Lash ‘N Roll mascara, which had become a viral “dupe” of the Roller Lash mascara on social media platforms, infringed on its trademark and trade dress. The crux of Benefit’s case was that E.l.f.’s product mirrored the distinctive design of Roller Lash’s packaging, from its pink-and-black color scheme to the “Hook ‘n’ Roll” branding used to promote the mascara’s curl-enhancing features. Benefit alleged that the resemblance was likely to confuse consumers into believing the two products came from the same source, and that the lower price of the E.l.f. mascara (which retails for $6 compared to Roller Lash’s $29) was unfairly drawing customers away.
While acknowledging that E.l.f.’s Lash ‘N Roll mascara could be seen as a cheaper alternative to the high-end Roller Lash, the court found that Benefit had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the two products were causing actual consumer confusion. In his ruling, Judge Seeborg noted that while E.l.f. had launched a product that closely resembled Benefit’s, there was no proof that consumers were misled about the source or origin of the mascara. “Intent to copy is not necessarily intent to deceive,” Seeborg wrote, reinforcing the idea that merely creating a similar product does not automatically constitute infringement.
Benefit’s Roller Lash, launched in 2015, has earned a cult following and is consistently ranked among the best mascaras in the industry. It has garnered multiple beauty awards, including the prestigious Allure Best of Beauty Award in 2015 and 2016. Despite its success, E.l.f. positioned Lash ‘N Roll as a more affordable option, offering a nearly identical 9.2g bottle for a fraction of the price. The court’s decision effectively shields the rising dupe trend, reaffirming that not every similarity between a low-cost product and a luxury brand constitutes unfair competition or trademark infringement.
