When traveling on a different side of the world or scrolling through Reddit, you probably have noticed brands or products that look familiar, but there’s something off about them... The font, colors, the shape of the logo are there, but one letter or the whole brand name is different.

Copycat brands utilize the features of existing brands, seeking to gain consumers’ acceptance. With less strict intellectual property and trademark laws, such labels are most popular in Asian countries. And because of western companies leaving Russia over the war in Ukraine, the market gaps in the country are being filled by “parasitic brands” too.

For example, Mcdonalds’ was replaced by Uncle Vania and Tasty &., IKEA by IDEA, and Starbucks by Stars Coffee and Starducks. Keep in mind that companies operating in different countries rarely rely on items, products, or components from over-the-seas suppliers. Usually, the majority of the goods are produced in the operating country following uniform requirements thus you can stamp any brand you want on the packaging, and the item will perform or taste quite the same. Like Uncle Vania’s and Mcdonalds’ burgers, which reportedly taste almost identical. Because they can’t use original packaging with a brand color palette, the burgers, fries, and other items are presented in plain white carbon packaging.

The story with Starbucks is similar, yet it was easier to replace the stickers on the white or clear drink cups and branding features displayed on the buildings. Russian entrepreneurs, who bought the chain, rebranded the logo and gave the famous two-tailed mermaid a traditional Russian headpiece – the kokoshnik.

While some of the copycat brands could be congratulated on thinking out of the box and adapting western logos to the country’s culture, some did not even try to be clever. The Starducks completely removed the mermaid from the logo and inserted a duck in its place. Both mermaids and ducks are water creatures, so we might see the relevance, but copying the brand which excited the country’s market is still unethical.

Parasitic brands in Asia are laughable rather than causing anger

Starf*cks, Starbacks and Sunbucks are just a few stores that popped up in China a while back when Starbucks’ popularity grew. Such copycat brands are accepted as an inevitability due to vague intellectual property laws and the country’s ecosystem. Businesses recognize that they can be replaced instantly by other companies having better ideas, better solutions, and better products that they propose to the consumers, so they copy without guilt.

Yet not every western brand has a lot of patience when dealing with copycats. Just last year, New Balance won a lawsuit against China’s New Barlun, which used the trademarked letter N on their shoes, impersonating one of the world’s major sports footwear and apparel manufacturers. The decision was handed down by the Shanghai Huangpu District Court in January 2021 and ordered New Barlun to pay $3.85 million in damages to New Balance. The court decided that the utilization of the symbol “N” and the logo, which was incredibly similar to the original, was a violation of trademark laws.

And it’s not the only lawsuit brought by New Balance to copycat brands in China.

What do consumers think about such brands?

Research in marketing says that consumers view feature imitation as unfair and inappropriate, and hold resentment toward the copycat brand. Feature imitation includes text, visual characteristics, sounds, and shapes that indicate a literal similarity. For example, the case of Starbucks in Russia shows literal similarity because Stars coffee reused the 1992-2011 Starbucks logo, but changed the crown into kokoshnik and added brown color to the color palette. Starducks reused the same old logo, left the color, but changed the brand hero. And there is a similarity in the name too.

Literal similarity can be seen in Chinese fake Starbucks as well due to colors, font, the shape of the logo, etc.

Theme imitation, unlike feature imitation, is perceived as more acceptable and less noticeable by consumers. Usually, brands that imitate the theme of other brands go unpunished because of being too unremarkable or rarely linked to the original brand. For example, if the fake Starbucks in Russia made a square logo with different colors, shapes, and font but left a mermaid in the middle, it would be classified as taking inspiration, and the word “copycat” probably would not have been used.

The question persists – why copy when you can be original? Why imitate someone else when you can attract consumers with great USPs? Why risk being sued when you can grow your profit instead? Why risk being made fun of for wrong spelling or being a copycat?

We can help to avoid unwanted similarities with other players in the market. We can help you avoid being a copycat.