Williams-Sonoma Tries Ad-Centric Strategy in Quince Dupe Lawsuit

Williams-Sonoma Inc. is trying a new legal strategy, concentrating on competitors’ ads instead of more traditional intellectual property claims to curb copycats as established brands compete with dupes to capture consumer dollars.

The furniture maker is accusing rival retailers of false advertising by deceptively comparing their copycats to its Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, and West Elm products. It’s a departure from the typical approach of suing dupers for infringing design patents or their trade dress, which protects the look and feel of a product or packaging that indicates a seller.

The current target is Quince, the $4.5 billion affordable-luxury brand that’s gained popularity for its promise of charging less for high-quality essentials from cashmere sweaters to couches. Last Brand Inc., Quince’s corporate name, will press a California federal judge Thursday to dismiss Williams-Sonoma’s lawsuit, arguing the litigation is fueled not by false advertising but the older brand’s resentment of its success.

The lawsuit’s evidence includes a Quince Instagram ad claiming its bed frame is half the price of a “Pottery Barn quality” one, when, Williams-Sonoma alleges, the Quince version is more expensive than the Pottery Barn equivalent.

“The higher-end brands are starting to understand, ‘We don’t own the design of this couch, that’s not protectable, we can’t get it off the market,’” said Sarah Harrell, counsel at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. “‘But we might be able to do something to change the way that they’re talking about us.’”

Williams-Sonoma’s “newer approach” makes sense because it’s “incredibly difficult” to prove a company has a protectable trade dress for furniture when there are so many similar designs, said Nixon Peabody partner Matt Werber.

A win for Williams-Sonoma would be a “big blow” for Quince because it could open the company—and others that employ similar comparative advertising tactics—to more false-advertising claims, he added.

Dupe Lawsuits Rise

Big brands aren’t shy about their efforts to squash dupes, leading to headline-generating cases like LululemonAthletica Inc.‘s lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. Last year, Williams-Sonoma secured a settlement from the operator of Dupe.com, a website claiming to find duplicate goods for lower prices, after accusing the site of false advertising.

Williams-Sonoma’s complaint notes cases where it says Quince’s statements that its items costing less than comparable brands were false.

Source: Court documents

Williams-Sonoma is just one of a handful of big brands that has sued Quince over its dupe tactics. But its focus on false advertising deviates from trademark-infringement claims brought by fashion company Coach, UGG boot maker Decker’s Outdoor Corp., and drinkware manufacturer Yeti Coolers LLC.

Williams-Sonoma sued Quince last November in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. It “has no problem with fair competition,” the complaint says, but Quince built a market for its dupe products by engaging in “widespread” false advertising representing its goods are “like” Pottery Barn and West Elm products.

The lawsuit repeatedly points to Quince’s “Beyond Compare” charts that list the price of its product next to a purportedly comparable Williams-Sonoma item indicating Quince would save customers as much as 52%. But the Williams-Sonoma prices Quince lists are often for larger or markedly different items, the complaint says.

In one instance, Quince compares its $2,600 couch to a $5,148 Pottery Barn model, though the most similar Pottery Barn couch costs $3,598, Williams-Sonoma says.

Targeting Ads

Quince moved to dismiss the suit in November, arguing that when its “ads are viewed in full and in context, as the law requires, WSI’s claims disintegrate faster than its own West Elm bed sheets.”

Williams-Sonoma’s complaint says Quince’s advertisement wrongly listed the most comparable Pottery Barn sectional to its offering as costing $5,148.

Source: Court documents

Insurgent brands need to be “very careful” about the sources they use in comparative advertising, Werber said.

“If you’re going to put a number like $5,148 and zero cents, you have to have a legitimate source for that, or else it could open you up” to liability, he said.

Sportswear company Alo LLC and fragrance maker Diptyque SAS previously accused Italic Inc., an e-commerce platform similar to Quince, of false advertising by listing inaccurate prices in its side-by-side ads. Alo settled, and Diptyque dropped its suit.

Williams-Sonoma’s approach likely reflects “what the plaintiffs have the ability to claim rather than a matter of strategic choosing” if they don’t have patent or trade dress rights, Saul Ewing LLP partner Mark Simpson said in an email.

“Comparative advertising is perfectly legal if done carefully and correctly,” Simpson said. If Williams-Sonoma succeeds, he expects dupe companies’ legal teams to more aggressively analyze their advertising campaigns before publication.

Barnes & Thornburg partner Caitlin Byczko called false advertising claims the “next frontier” of lawsuits as dupes become more sophisticated, better avoiding trademarks, trade dress, design patents, and copyrights.

“At a minimum, it will hopefully make people who are duping more careful about what they’re saying,” Byczko said.

The case is Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Last Brand Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 25-cv-10118, hearing scheduled for 2/19/26.