How much is an idea worth? According to the United States federal government, Lashify’s DIY lash extension system is worth a cool $34 million. That’s the amount a Texas federal jury ordered Chinese lash competitor Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co. (also known as Worldbeauty) to pay earlier this year in a patent infringement case. The jury determined Worldbeauty owed $30.5 million in lost profits and $3.6 million worth of a reasonable royalty, with a royalty rate of 30%, for willfully infringing on three of Lashify’s patents. Lashify has been granted over 600 patents worldwide for its innovative lash system, but that hasn’t stopped other companies from imitating its designs and application methods.
Founded by Sahara Lotti in 2016, Lashify has been at the center of numerous patent infringement lawsuits across federal courts in Texas, California, and Utah, as well as the International Trade Commission (ITC). Lotti tells BeautyMatter she has spent nearly $50 million over the last four years defending Lashify’s patents.
While her groundbreaking patent victory against Worldbeauty sets a powerful precedent that could expedite resolutions in Lashify’s ongoing litigation campaign against competitors using the brand’s patents without proper license, it also underscores the growing complexity of enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights in a booming industry like beauty where innovation and imitation are often in tension. With the rise of dupe culture, the line in the sand that separates inspiration from outright infringement is increasingly blurred, forcing brands to navigate a complex landscape where creativity, ethics, and legal boundaries collide.
Lashify’s $34 million victory is a pivotal case in the ongoing debate surrounding dupe culture that not only reaffirms the importance of IP protection but also serves as a warning to competitors seeking to knock off patented innovations without going through the proper licensing channels. BeautyMatter sat down with Lotti to discuss the lawsuit and the importance of IP protection in the beauty industry.
Inventing Lashify
Before inventing the Lashify DIY lash extension system, Lotti was a successful screenwriter in Hollywood, where she first recognized the power and importance of intellectual property rights. Lotti loved the look of professionally applied lash extensions but loathed having to spend hundreds of dollars and many hours in the chair to maintain her voluminous lashes. To save time and money, she sought to create a DIY lash extension system that wasn’t overly complicated but still allowed her to achieve professional-looking results.
After years of experimentation, Lotti created the Lashify system, which contains silk lashes that fit closely under the lash line, as well as a product applicator, adhesive, and waterproof sealing product. Meant to last up to 10 days, the Lashify system pioneered the DIY lash extension market.
“Lashes have been a problem for many people for a long time,” Lotti tells BeautyMatter. “[Professional] lash extensions were amazing, but they weren't ideal. I basically worked on it until I figured out how to crack the code.”
Before Lashify, there were only two types of false lashes: strip lashes, which were affordable but temporary, and professional lash extensions, which were more expensive but lasted longer. Lotti created Lashify to exist in the middle, but to do so, she had to invent both the method and the product. She worked with her manufacturers to construct lash clusters designed to sit underneath the lash line instead of on top, like with strip lashes. She also had to invent a tool to help apply the lash clusters.
Lotti knew she had invented something unique before selling a single kit. Dead set on owning this newfound white space in the beauty market, Lotti filed patents for all her inventions.
“When I first patented [the Lashify system], I never, in a million years, thought that it would be that hard to enforce,” recalls Lotti. “But if anything, it makes people want to copy you even more. When you file a patent, you’re essentially giving all of your competitors a recipe for how they can copy you.”
As revolutionary as it was, Lashify wasn’t an instant hit. In the beginning, consumers didn’t understand it. It wasn’t until Lotti started doing live tutorials showcasing how the Lashify system works and how quick and easy it was to apply that the customers started pouring in.
“I realized that people are so used to being scammed that they don't really believe you when you're selling them something new and exciting,” says Lotti.
Patent Problems
As Lashify started gaining traction, competitors started to take notice. What happened next, Lotti described as a “looting of [her] intellectual property.”
“It wasn't just one or two patents; it was everything. And I mean everything: my wand, lashes, the bond and seal … down to the tip of the applicator,” she says.
“The moment that everybody starts copying you, it’s like your patents don't mean anything anymore. It's almost like you spend all this money on building this beautiful house and now you have all these squatters living in there. You're either going to walk away from your house or you're going to do something about it.”
Lotti wasted no time taking action to defend her patents. In 2020, Lashify sued Kiss Nail Products Inc. for patent infringement after alleging that Kiss violated two Lashify patents when it launched the Kiss Falscara Eyelash Starter Kit, which contains lashes, an applicator, and bonding and sealing products. Kiss sells its eyelash extension starter kit for $24.99, while Lashify’s original Control Kit costs $145.
The suit alleges Kiss “willfully copied Lashify’s technology without license” and intentionally copied Lashify’s “look and feel.” Lashify claims Kiss product development and marketing employees ordered Lashify products to the brand’s Port Washington, NY, headquarters. According to Lotti, a representative from Kiss even went so far as to approach Lashify’s manufacturers and attempt to bribe them to leak the brand’s trade secrets. (Kiss did not respond to BeautyMatter's requests for comment.)
Lashify also filed a lawsuit with the ITC, which investigates and makes determinations in import proceedings, alleging that Kiss infringed on multiple products. The ITC found infringement on some products, but determined that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical prong of the “domestic industry” requirement for others because the products were not made in the US.
Kiss’ imitation DIY lash kits opened the floodgates for other brands, including foreign companies, to replicate Lashify’s patented system. Products that appeared to be nearly identical copies started showing up across sites like Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay. In the blink of an eye, there were thousands of infringers all over the interwebs.
“When a company that big starts stealing from you, it essentially gives everybody else the green light to do it as well,” says Lotti.
After taking on Kiss, Lashify became the first American brand to pursue legal action in China against knockoff manufacturers when it filed a lawsuit in Qingdao, China, against Qingdao Hollyren Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (also known as Hollyren) in 2020. What many people may not realize is that most lash products are sourced from a small number of factories, with trading companies distributing them to various brands, many of which may have different names but are all owned by the same company. These brands take out ads across Instagram, Amazon, and other platforms to win over sales in the false lash category.
“I'm fighting for the same ad space as somebody that's selling the exact same product for a tenth of the price,” says Lotti. “You can't survive [as a business].”
By targeting a Chinese manufacturer directly, Lotti aimed to strike at the root of the problem, effectively cutting off the "snake’s head" in the fight against counterfeit products.
"Hollyren is selling Lashify's patented wand to unsuspecting American companies," Lotti stated in a press release. "We are filing this lawsuit not only to stop Hollyren from unlawfully using our creation, but to alert other companies that doing business with Hollyren is not worth the jeopardy it puts you in."
The Journey of the American Inventor
The initial industry response to Lashify’s litigation campaign was less than positive. Some argued that the brand was trying to squash smaller entrepreneurs rather than fostering healthy competition in the beauty space.
“It was as if I was a really evil person for enforcing my patents,” says Lotti. “In every other business in the world, if you enforce your patent, you're a badass but not in the beauty industry.”
Other critics viewed the lawsuits as an aggressive tactic aimed at monopolizing a growing market, raising concerns about the potential stifling of creativity and innovation among beauty brands. However, Lashify maintained that its legal actions were necessary to protect the integrity of its patented technology and to ensure fair play.
“I'm an entrepreneur; the last thing I want to do is sue a bunch of entrepreneurs,” says Lotti. “My objective wasn't just to sue people for the sake of suing; my objective was to stop the infringement.”
Lotti makes it clear that she doesn’t want to stop other brands from benefitting from her patents, but she does want to be compensated for the time and effort she put into innovating. Lashify owns the utility patent for lashes made with multiple clusters designed to be placed underneath the lash line. Simply put, companies that make lashes in a similar style are infringing on Lashify’s patent. In the United States, a utility patent typically lasts for 20 years from the date the patent application was filed, meaning the patent holder has exclusive rights to their invention for that duration.
“I don't care if everybody makes my lash, but you have to pay licensing fees,” says Lotti. “Otherwise, why did I get all those patents? That’s what incentivized me. I created this underlash cluster, so give me my 20 years.”
Lotti echoes the same sentiment regarding dupes, arguing that companies that sell dupes are making more than enough to afford to pay licensing fees.
“Dupes are cool,” she says. “There's a way to make a dupe that doesn’t involve thieving and robbing.”
Lotti is one of the only female inventors in beauty to have successfully defended her patent in the United States legal system and take down copycats. In 2012, makeup artist Alexandra Byrne patented a segmented style of strip lashes, which have gone on to be replicated by nearly every major lash brand and manufacturer. Katy Stoka, who invented and patented the popular magnetic lash, faced a similar fate.
Makeup artist Rea Ann Silva was unable to obtain a patent for the Beautyblender due to its resemblance to the tip of a medical device that was made out of a similar egg-shaped foam. Silva felt so strongly about her invention’s place in the market that she refiled for a patent four times, all unsuccessfully. As a result, dupes that imitated the general shape and function of the Beautyblender flooded the market without consequence.
These women are now all friends, having bonded over the exhilaration and disappointment that comes with being an inventor and innovator. Lashify’s victory was a bittersweet reminder that patents are worth fighting for, if you have the access and ability to do so.
“It wasn't just for me,” says Lotti of her triumph in court. “It was for Katy [Stoka]. It was for Alex Byrne. It was for Rea Ann [Silva].”
In November 2024, after Lashify’s victory against Worldbeauty, the luxury lash brand settled with Hollyren to cease the manufacture, import, and sale of certain artificial eyelash kits in the United States. Hollyren agreed to stop supporting third-party sales once it fulfills prior orders, agreeing to the validity and enforceability of Lashify’s patents.
“At the end of the day, brands copy other [brands] because they want to make money, but if the loss is big enough, it's not worth it anymore,” says Lotti. “Now that we won, people are going to think twice.”
Since winning the case, Lotti says she has been approached tby hree different major lash brands wanting to make arrangements to pay the licensing fees necessary to market and sell dupes of Lashify’s patented products. “That’s how it should’ve been the whole time,” she says.
Lotti says the experience has made her want to help other entrepreneurs set themselves up for success when it comes to patenting their innovations. She has her eye set on the hair market, a multibillion dollar industry.
“It's a little bit of a rich people game, and that's what I want to change. Ninety-eight percent of all innovation [in haircare] is done by African American women who get patents, and they don't even own 1% of the industry,” says Lotti. “It’s not right, and it’s not fair."
Lotti advises beauty inventors who plan to start a direct-to-consumer business to focus on design patents. “The best way to enforce IP online is via design,” she says. “If that same thing is online, you can enforce that without having to do a whole litigation.”
Lotti plans to continue filing design patents for all her lash designs and inventions, including her upcoming innovation in the nail category, which she plans to launch in February.
“When I first started Lashify, the whole idea was to create a beauty think-tank where we become the authority on whatever topic we're focused on,” says Lotti. “Not everybody wears lashes, but everybody wears nail polish.”
A lifelong innovator and inventor, Lotti is firm in her belief in the American patent system and jury trial that unanimously voted to award Lotti her millions in lost profits and royalties. After the trial ended, Lotti elected to move all of the brand’s adhesive manufacturing to the United States. She plans to move the manufacturing of lashes stateside in the near future and do her part to create more jobs in America. Winning this case paves the way for other American inventors to fight for their patent rights and be the one to reap the benefits of creating something the world hasn’t seen before.
“It's about setting the precedent,” says Lotti. “There is no such thing as easy money. You’ve got to pay your dues, and then you'll be able to sell this product as well.”
