The legal framework for fighting copycats, lookalikes and dupes: what can brand owners do to protect themselves?

In this article, the second in our series, we look at the various legal options brand owners have when faced with copycats and compare trends across some key regions.

 

Dealing with counterfeits

Of the types of copycats, counterfeits tend to involve IP infringement in a relatively straightforward manner. In response, brand owners have a number of tools in their arsenal:

• Trade mark claims: counterfeit products usually bear an identical or very similar trade mark to the original product and so can be challenged through trade mark infringement proceedings. All the costs and challenges of dispute resolution apply. One of the biggest challenges can often be locating the counterfeiters in order to bring a claim in the first place, as their supply chains and importation channels are deliberately and notoriously complex. In many territories, claims of trade mark infringement will be accompanied with claims of passing off, unfair competition, and/or violation of consumer law (such as in Australia, where misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law is commonly pleaded).
• Customs applications: customs regulations empower customs authorities to seize counterfeit goods at the border. Notably, many jurisdictions offer brand owners the ability to proactively supply customs with notice and information on their key products and IP rights, enabling customs to rapidly take action when they encounter suspected counterfeits. It is important for brand owners to work with customs officials to help them identify counterfeit goods, particularly in territories and trade channels of concern.
• In-territory enforcement via public authorities: in many territories, certain authorities have the power to take action against counterfeit products on the domestic market. Such authorities often move swifter than the courts, however their grounds for action and enforcement powers vary, as does whether they act proactively or only following a complaint. For example, Hong Kong, the Customs and Excise Department can take action against product that violates trade descriptions legislation (such as by claiming to originate from a particular brand) and often approach rightsholders of their own volition when such product is discovered. In China, local administrative authorities have the power to raid premises and seize infringing products, but commonly the brand owner must first supply preliminary evidence of the infringement.
• Ecommerce takedowns: many territories oblige ecommerce platform operators to provide a channel for IP complaints and takedown requests, which brand owners can file when counterfeit products are spotted on the platform. China's offerings here are particularly sophisticated; for example, ecommerce giant Alibaba offers a 'Good Faith Takedown Mechanism' scheme with preferential complaint handling for brand owners suffering persistent infringement on their platforms. In the EU, the relatively new Digital Services Act (which became fully applicable in February 2024) imposes a suite of relevant obligations on online marketplaces, including requirements to verify the identity of third party sellers before they can list products, provide a user-friendly system to report illegal content and act swiftly to remove illegal listings once notified, and prioritise handling of complaints from trusted flaggers (such as brand protection groups).
• Website blocking orders: where large scale online counterfeiting is involved and the counterfeiters themselves are hard to trace, blocking access to websites selling counterfeit goods may be the best option. "Blocking orders" are available which order ISPs to block access to websites advertising counterfeit goods, however the brand owners tend to have to bear the costs of implementing the order.
• Criminal enforcement: counterfeiting activities often constitute offences under criminal laws, giving brand owners the option to liaise with criminal authorities to have criminal penalties imposed on the culprits. Criminal enforcement can have a powerful deterrent effect, however the ability of the brand owner to control the process can vary widely between jurisdictions, and the remedies available to the brand owner are more limited. In some territories, private prosecution is available, in which proceedings are initiated by an individual or private entity as opposed to a public prosecutorial authority.

As with all IP enforcement projects, a layered approach is usually wise, and not all of the above methods will apply in each case. The right ones to deploy will depend on the nature of the products and infringement, and the territories and sales channels involved.

 

Dealing with dupes

In comparison to traditional counterfeits, dupes do not usually copy the original product's trade marks, which makes enforcement trickier. Some of the options that brand owners are turning to include:

• Trade mark claims based on reputation of the original brand: for example, in the UK, EU and Hong Kong, a claimant might argue that the dupe uses a sign that takes unfair advantage or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of a mark with a reputation in the territory. Specific protections for well-known marks may also apply, such as in China. However, the viability of this sort of claim will vary depending on the nature of the dupe and how it references the original. The brand owner also faces the challenge of proving their reputation, which normally requires high volumes of evidence.
• Passing off and unfair competition: the former is more common in common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Hong Kong and Australia, whereas the latter is more common in civil law territories such as in Italy and China. Such laws can sometimes provide protection to brand owners where they can argue that dupes are taking unauthorised advantage of their reputation and that of their products. The largest challenge for brand owners in such actions is usually proving that reputation, as well as that the product features to which the dupes refer are sufficiently distinctive.
• Design rights: these are particularly useful for products with distinctive design features which dupe products commonly target. Most territories have systems of design right registration, in many cases available on a much shorter timeframe than trade mark registrations and with less onerous examination hurdles. Some territories afford protection (usually to a lesser degree) for unregistered designs.
• Non-traditional marks: where traditional word and figurative marks don't apply (as is common in the case of dupes), non-traditional marks might. These can offer protection for a product's distinctive colour, shape, packaging, scent, or positioning of certain elements. However, obtaining registration for such marks is difficult almost everywhere, and requires high volumes of supporting evidence that relatively few brands are able to muster.
• Copyright: this can be an option where similar artistic works and visual design elements are deployed on the dupe product or its packaging or marketing materials. In the UK in 2019, Charlotte Tilbury won an application for summary judgment based on copyright infringement against Aldi. Aldi had released a product called Broadway Shape and Glow which the judge found infringed the copyright in Charlotte Tilbury's Filmstar Bronze and Glow Palette. The judge held that Aldi had no real prospect of successfully defending a claim of copyright infringement for the starburst design on the lid of the product and the powder design inside.¹
• Consumer law avenues: brand owners can invoke these when dupe products mislead or deceive consumers. Depending on the jurisdiction, this might involve private litigation or action via public authorities. However, remedies can be tough to obtain when dupes merely allude to the original without making any false claims of origin or association, or false claims regarding features and qualities.
• Advertising law avenues: see under the next heading.

Dupe advertising – when brand owners can take action

Calling something a dupe of another product is a form of comparative advertising. Comparative advertising (comparing one's products to another) is often legal if it is not false or deceptive, although some countries have stricter laws against comparative advertising than others.

Comparative claims may include claims that a product is as good as a competitor's. They may even include the competitor's trade marks if they satisfy the requirements of fair use. In the EU, the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive lists the conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted, including where "it does not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name." Questions on construction of the Directive have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (in L'Oreal v Bellure NV² ) and the court's answers suggest that use of a term like "dupe" to compare products would be outside what is considered reasonable in the context of comparative advertising.

Advertising standards offer an alternative way of resolving competitor disputes. Most forms of advertising are subject to advertising codes (such as the UK's CAP Code). A dupe could fall foul of an advertising code if its advertising is misleading or implies false equivalence with the original product. While falling foul of these national codes may not lead to regulator fines, their rulings are generally public so an unfavourable decision will have reputational consequences.

Fragrance is a popular sector for dupes. Intellectual property right protection for fragrances can be limited where the packaging or branding itself is not replicated. For example, the French Supreme Court held in 2013 that a fragrance cannot benefit from copyright protection. Similar decisions have been seen over the years across Europe (although there is an older Dutch decision which found the opposite). While the exact formulation and manufacturing process may be protected by the law of trade secrets, this does not prevent independent creation of the same (or a very similar) fragrance. Some level of reverse engineering of the marketed product may also be permissible. While it may be possible in principle to register a smell as a trade mark, such non-traditional, olfactory trade marks are difficult to obtain in practice. The best means of redress for a dupe fragrance may be under comparative advertising laws. Comparison lists may be a form of unlawful comparative advertising where the dupe uses the original brand's trade marks, as found by several decisions in Italy (see further on these below).

 

Global enforcement trends

Having looked at some of the courses of action available to brand owners, we thought it would be interesting to ask some of our partners in key markets if they have noticed any enforcement trends emerging, particularly in the sectors often targeted by dupes such as luxury goods, fashion, food and beverage, and beauty. How is the law in their jurisdiction developing to address dupe culture and are there any global trends? Is the tide turning in favour of brand owners?

Italy: Elena Varese

Although courts rarely use the term dupes, both Italian and EU jurisprudence have long dealt with look-alikes (products that imitate the appearance or image of well-known brands without reproducing their marks) through the combined application of trade mark law, design rights, and Article 2598 of the Civil Code on unfair competition by slavish imitation, hooking-up, and parasitic exploitation. Crucially, some forms of unfair competition do not require a likelihood of confusion, making them particularly effective in addressing the emerging "dupe" culture.

The leading authority is the Court of Justice's landmark decision in L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV, which, although decided on different facts, established principles directly relevant to the protection of trade marks against unfair advantage and imitation. The case involved imitation perfumes marketed through "equivalence lists" claiming to smell like L'Oréal's luxury fragrances − products not protected by specific IP rights at the time. The CJEU held that such conduct constituted unfair advantage under Article 5(2) of the Trade Marks Directive, even absent confusion, because it sought to "ride on the coat-tails of a mark with a reputation" to benefit from its power of attraction and prestige. The Court clarified that comparative advertising referencing a competitor's mark is lawful only if it complies with all the conditions of the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, namely that it:

• does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark (Article 4(f));
• does not present goods as imitations or replicas of goods bearing a protected mark (Article 4(g)); and
• offers an objective, verifiable comparison that enables consumers to make an informed choice, without exploiting another's image or diluting distinctiveness.

The CJEU concluded that the fragrance "equivalence lists" infringed L'Oréal's marks because they appropriated the aura and value of the originals, eroding the distinction between luxury and imitation products. L'Oréal v Bellure therefore remains the cornerstone for assessing dupes and sets out the following principles: marks with a reputation enjoy protection even without confusion; free-riding on reputation (parasitism) is actionable; and comparative claims are lawful only if they avoid unfair advantage or imitation.

Italian courts have consistently followed this reasoning. Decisions from Milan and Turin confirmed that "equivalence" claims suggesting that a cheaper product reproduces the qualities or aura of a luxury brand fall outside lawful comparative advertising and amount to parasitic exploitation under Article 2598(3) c.c.³ The Supreme Court in Jean Louis David⁴ held that promoting one's products as identical to those of a renowned brand constitutes parasitic unfair competition, stressing that confusion is irrelevant – what matters is exploiting another's reputation.

Advertising a cheaper alternative is, in principle, legitimate if done in compliance with L'Oréal; however, the boundary is crossed when the imitation's overall appearance or presentation unfairly capitalises on another's brand image. Even without registered rights in a product's shape or get-up, Italian courts recognise unfair competition by slavish imitation or parasitic exploitation where a look-alike leverages the creative and marketing investment of a rival.

Where a product's shape or get-up is distinctive and deliberately imitated, a claim of hooking-up may arise (in which a third party mark is referenced without confusion, but nonetheless leveraging its reputation to gain an advantage). Otherwise, it must be shown that the dupe free-rides on the product's reputation beyond the limits of lawful comparative advertising. An illustrative case is Procter & Gamble v Dolce Sonno (the ZzzQuil case)⁵ , where the court held that the near-identical packaging of a competing sleep-aid constituted look-alike unfair competition and ordered an injunction and recall, emphasising that the "overall impression" and intent to exploit brand recognition sufficed even without confusion. In Menghi Shoes v Teddy S.p.A⁶. , the Court confirmed that design infringement and slavish imitation can be pursued cumulatively, and that use of a different word mark does not preclude liability when the overall product appearance remains distinctive.

Nonetheless, drawing the line in dupe disputes is not straightforward. A recent Turin Court decision involving a luxury footwear brand⁷ demonstrates the evidential burden on claimants: although the products shared stylistic and marketing similarities, the court found that they produced a distinct overall impression and therefore dismissed the claim. The decision highlights that even in the luxury sector, resemblance or brand-inspired design does not automatically result in liability. Brand owners must show that the copied features are distinctive, that the alleged infringer takes unfair advantage of their reputation, and that evidence of consumer recognition, marketing investment, and overall impression is compelling.

China: Edward Chatterton and Elizabeth Wong

In mainland China, recent judicial decisions reflect a clear trend toward strengthening brand protection and curbing the proliferation of “dupe culture” across both physical and digital marketplaces.

In P&G v Longqi’er Cosmetics Co., the Baiyun District People's Court of Guangzhou found that Longqi’er had manufactured and sold low-cost shampoos and body washes (such as “潘飘飞丝” (Pan Piao Fei Si) and “肤仕佳” (Fushijia)) that closely resembled P&G’s household brands, including Pantene, Rejoice, Head & Shoulders, and Safeguard. These lookalike products incorporated elements of P&G’s well-known trade marks, replicated the original colour schemes and packaging designs, and were promoted via major ecommerce platforms. The court held that such conduct constituted trade mark infringement and unfair competition, citing clear consumer confusion and deliberate “free-riding” on the goodwill of the P&G brands. It awarded damages of RMB 1.5 million and emphasised the presence of “malicious intent,” underscoring the need for deterrence through enhanced penalties. The case is widely regarded as a benchmark for addressing lookalike branding in the fast-moving consumer goods sector, demonstrating the court’s willingness to intervene even where imitation falls short of outright counterfeiting.

In the digital realm, Hua XX Technology v. Quzhou Da XX Ecommerce Co. (2025) marked a significant extension of trade mark protection into the area of livestreaming ecommerce, a dominant force in China’s retail ecosystem. The defendants operated multiple Douyin (TikTok) accounts that produced and disseminated a substantial volume of short videos prominently featuring the plaintiff’s trade marks and logos, with the intent of driving traffic to their livestreams. These livestreams emulated the plaintiff’s flagship smartphone brand by displaying its trade marks and logos during broadcasts and using studio backdrops that closely resembled the plaintiff’s physical retail environments. Leveraging these elements, the defendants attracted viewers and subsequently marketed low-end imitation devices bearing names and appearances closely resembling those of Huawei. The Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang found that such “traffic-diverting” tactics (exploiting visibility in search results and visual mimicry to create a false impression of brand affiliation) far exceeded the permissible scope of fair use and were likely to cause consumer confusion. The conduct was held to constitute trade mark infringement and unfair competition. The court imposed triple punitive damages amounting to RMB 1.1 million, underscoring the judiciary’s firm stance against the misappropriation of brand identity in online marketing.

Taken together, these decisions reflect a continuing shift in China’s enforcement landscape. Courts are increasingly invoking both trade mark and unfair competition principles to restrain imitation across emerging retail channels such as ecommerce and livestreaming platforms, and are imposing heightened damages in cases involving wilful or large-scale infringement. These developments signal a strengthening of protection for brand owners - whether their reputations are being misappropriated through physical lookalikes on store shelves or through algorithm-driven “digital dupes” on social media marketplaces.

Hong Kong: Edward Chatterton and Elizabeth Wong

In Hong Kong, a recent and noteworthy enforcement action addressing the rise of “dupe culture” is Warner Bros v D.K.A.J Ltd (the “9¾ Café” case). The High Court held that the operators of a Harry Potter-themed restaurant had infringed Warner Bros’ copyright and trade mark rights by reproducing distinctive characters, props, and marks from the film franchise without authorisation. The café’s décor and menu, featuring the “9¾” name and other recognisable elements, were found likely to mislead consumers into believing the establishment was endorsed by Warner Bros. The court granted an injunction and ordered the invalidation of the defendant’s “9¾ Café” trade mark registration. The case highlights the Hong Kong court’s readiness to rigorously invoke principles of copyright, trade mark and passing off in instances where traders imitate protected themes or seek to commercially exploit the goodwill of others. It further underscores that themed or “inspired” businesses (particularly prevalent in the lifestyle, food and beverage, and fashion sectors) must operate with proper authorisation from the relevant intellectual property rights holders.

Hong Kong’s enforcement landscape has become increasingly proactive at the administrative level. Both the Customs and Excise Department and the Intellectual Property Department have intensified their efforts through targeted raids and enhanced online investigations. In 2023 alone, Customs handled several hundred cross-boundary infringement cases (representing a 45% year-on-year increase) and established a dedicated Anti-Internet Piracy Team comprising over 40 members, focused on combating counterfeits across social media and ecommerce platforms. These developments, alongside the implementation of the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) in 2024 (which facilitates cross-border enforcement of IP-related judgments) reflect a broader trend toward strengthened regional collaboration and brand protection infrastructure. Collectively, these measures affirm Hong Kong’s position as a jurisdiction that supports rights holders, with the judiciary, enforcement agencies, and legislature increasingly aligned in their efforts to deter both overt counterfeiting and more nuanced "dupes".

UK: Ruth Hoy and Julia King

In the UK, the tide is certainly turning against discount retailers and their own-brand 'dupe' products. Where previously brand owners were struggling to prove goodwill (unregistered rights) in their get-ups, as well as consumer misrepresentation and resulting damage, to tackle lookalikes (Moroccanoil v Aldi's Miracle Oil springs to mind), established brands are now being more strategic with their IP protection and subsequent brand enforcement.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Thatchers v Aldi marks a clear shift in brands obtaining protection for non-traditional but distinctive trade marks (such as packaging, position marks, and 3D marks) and using these rights to stop discount retailers in their tracks under section 10(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act. In that case, Aldi produced a cloudy lemon cider product with similarities to Thatcher’s own cloudy lemon cider product, particularly in respect of the packaging design. Where once Thatchers may have struggled to prove that Aldi was passing off its Taurus lemon cider product as Thatcher's own, the court agreed that Aldi's imitation of the distinctive and reputed Thatchers cider get-up took unfair advantage of Thatchers' non-traditional, but distinctive, trade marks.

Registered design protection can also be leveraged against dupes where the original product is novel and has distinctive character. Marks & Spencer successfully enforced its rights in its festive snow globe gin bottle against Aldi⁸ , stopping the discount retailer from selling such a similar gin product where it had considerable freedom to adopt a less similar design to M&S' product. In that case, the design features of Aldi's product which were similar to M&S' product included the illumination of the bottle, the shape and contour of the bottle and cork stopper, the bottle’s winter forest silhouette design and the gold leaf flakes inside the bottle.

The increase in trade mark and designs litigation doesn't seem to have put off discount retailers from engaging with dupe culture in the UK. On the contrary, astute discount retailers are using ongoing litigation as part of their social media strategies to 'tease' brand owners and whip up consumer engagement and sympathy.

Clever brands incorporate this into their enforcement strategies at the outset, looping their social media teams into litigation timetables where relevant. We expect that we will see an even more joined-up approach between legal, sales and marketing teams in the future – brand protection is not just for the domain of IP specialists.

Australia: Jessie Buchan and Liam Blackford

In Australia, consumer law has long played an important role in copycat litigation. An illustrative case from 2002 involved an energy drink sold under the name 'LiveWire', sold in a silver, blue and red can similar to the very popular Red Bull brand in the same category. Despite being sold under a different name, the distributors of LiveWire were found to be engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of Australian consumer law and passing off.⁹ However, things haven't always gone in favour of the brand owner. In Moroccanoil's suit against Aldi's similar haircare product¹⁰ (a counterpart to the UK suit), Aldi's use of similar blue packaging was found to constitute neither misleading and deceptive conduct nor passing off (though misleading and deceptive conduct was established on other, unrelated grounds).

A recent decision from Australia's highest court might embolden purveyors of copycat products to more overtly compare themselves with the originals. In the suit, Allergan claimed that phrases like “instant Botox® alternative” and the name "PROTOX" infringed its trade mark rights in "BOTOX". However, the High Court disagreed, holding that "PROTOX" was not deceptively similar to "BOTOX", and that “instant Botox® alternative” did not constitute use as a trade mark in the manner necessary for infringement.¹¹

On the other hand, a more recent decision counts as a victory for brand owners. In the decision¹² , the Federal Court agreed with Hampden Holdings' argument that Aldi's Mamia-branded baby puff snacks gave rise to copyright infringement in relation to Hampden's Baby Bellies products. Taking into account the child-friendly font, imagery, colour scheme and use of cartoon characters, the court agreed that Aldi had reproduced a substantial part of Hampden's original artistic works. Given the qualitative similarities, the court rejected Aldi's counterargument that Hampden was trying to protect an idea and not an expression (in contravention of a foundational principle of copyright law). The decision may be appealed, but it nonetheless demonstrates the potential power of copyright in a brand owner's arsenal against dupes.

Germany: Burkhard Führmeyer, Eike Bodo Matthes and Marisa Machacek

Two 2023 decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) have revisited and clarified a more than two decades old ruling on dupes of products for daily needs. The decisions have effectively reinforced protections against dupe products, by acknowledging that creative packaging merits special consideration in the otherwise uniform market for everyday goods.

Under Germany's Act on Unfair Competition (UWG), protection against lookalikes and dupes is very limited. Pursuant to section 4 No. 3 UWG, such protection will only be awarded if specific requirements are met, including the objective similarity between the original product and the imitation. More importantly though, the original must possess competitive originality (i.e. the overall appearance deviates from the design norm in the sector), and there must be a further element of unfairness (such as avoidable deception about the product origin, which can arise from the design of the products and/or their packaging, and which is determined in each individual case).

In this context, imitators have long relied on the so-called ‘Viennetta’ ruling of the BGH from the year 2000. In the case, two ice cream manufacturers marketed ice cream products with similar wave-like layered textures. Each manufacturer's packaging featured a slightly different product image. However, the imitator used the product name ‘Cafe au lait’ instead of the original name ‘Viennetta’ and marketed the product under its own manufacturer name. The court held that packaging similarity alone was not sufficient to establish deception of origin, reasoning that everyday goods are often designed in a similar way, so that the target consumer group tends to distinguish them by their product and manufacturer name, paying less attention to other design features of the packaging. This ruling was widely understood to mean that deception of origin through packaging of everyday goods was categorically ruled out if the product and manufacturer name differ unless all essential design features were copied.

In the 2023 decision in ‘Kerrygold v Dairygold’ (a decision particularly significant in the food and consumer goods sector), BGH departed from this interpretation and significantly strengthened the protection of product packaging against imitation. This dispute involved the packaging of butter. The packaging of both products featured gold or silver foil wrapping (depending on the flavour), a green landscape, grazing cows, and a golden round seal with Dairygold additionally highlighting the origin ‘From County Kerry’ on the packaging.

Although BGH ultimately remitted the case back to the Higher Regional Court of Cologne for further fact-finding, it nevertheless provided comprehensive guidance on the deception of origin element. Contrary to what was often assumed from the ‘Viennetta’ ruling, deception of origin can exist even if not all essential design features have been copied. Rather, all circumstances of the individual case must be considered including the design and presentation of the product name and manufacturer on the imitation packaging. Following this guidance, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne subsequently found that there was avoidable deception of origin.

Later in 2023, BGH issued another noteworthy decision in ‘Glück v LieBee’, a dispute over honey and jam packaging that clarified what constitutes competitive originality under section 4 No. 3 UWG. Both parties used thick-walled, wide but shallow crucible-shaped jars as packaging for their products, both with a ‘no label’ design and both using emotional keywords as the product name: ‘Glück’ (luck) and ‘LieBee’ (a word play on ‘love’ and ‘bee’).

In its ruling, BGH reconciled the principles from ‘Viennetta’ and ‘Kerrygold v Dairygold’, emphasising that, even if the packaging design of an everyday product stands out from the market environment, consumers may still rely primarily on product and manufacturer names thereby potentially excluding a deception of origin. Assessing the significance of such labelling requires a comprehensive case-by-case analysis considering which product and origin labels are used on the imitation and how prominently and in what manner they are displayed. It also clarified that that the abstract idea of using an emotional buzzword as a product name is not part of the concrete product appearance and therefore does not contribute to competitive originality. On that basis, the differences between the product names (Glück v LieBee) were sufficient for the consumers to distinguish between the products, meaning that deception of origin could not be established. Following this guidance, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg dismissed the infringement claim in 2024 after remittal.

The case emphasises that distinctive packaging design can enhance protection against lookalikes and dupes in the market for everyday goods. However, only the features of the packaging itself are subject to protection against imitation, not the underlying concept.

Conclusion

In many territories, the power of brand owners to take action against copycats is growing. Nonetheless, doing so is by no means simple. Successful action requires a combination of different methods, and the right combination varies between jurisdictions. Intellectual property rights are usually the first port of call, however brand owners would be wise not to overlook the options provided by consumer protection and advertising law. Given this complexity, our next article will look at some of the practical measures brand owners can adopt globally to protect themselves from copycats.