Every Dogue has its day: Underdog magazine takes on owners of Vogue in bitter tit-for-tat copycat legal fight
Independent dog-fashion magazine Dogue has filed counterclaims against Condé Nast after the publisher of Vogue sued it over alleged trademark infringement. The dispute matters because Dogue’s sole creator, Oli Port, says the legal action could close her small publication, while she argues that Vogue later adopted the same dog-centred concept for its own online features.
Port launched Dogue in 2019 and produces a limited print run of 100 copies, compared with Vogue’s worldwide circulation and the resources of its parent company. Vogue began publishing online dog features called Dogue in August 2024, featuring celebrities and their pets; Condé Nast says Port’s magazine risks confusing consumers and harming its reputation, while Port says it copied her established name and format.
- Dogue countersues Condé Nast over its Vogue trademark claim.
- Creator Oli Port says Vogue copied her dog-magazine concept.
- The case pits a tiny independent publisher against a media giant.
New here? Start with this
Dogue is a small independent magazine about dogs, fashion and style, created by Oli Port in 2019. Its name is a play on Vogue, the long-running fashion magazine published by Condé Nast.
Condé Nast is a major global media company that owns Vogue and many other well-known titles. Trademark law can allow a business to challenge another name or brand if it believes people may mistake one product for the other, or that its reputation could be affected.
The disagreement also centres on who used the dog-fashion idea first. While Dogue has a small print audience, Vogue has a much larger international presence, making the outcome potentially important for both the independent publisher and the larger brand.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Condé Nast can reasonably argue that Vogue is a globally recognised fashion brand and that Dogue’s near-identical name, fashion-magazine presentation and dog-related editorial focus may lead some readers, advertisers or collaborators to assume an affiliation. Trademark law exists partly to prevent that sort of confusion and to protect the reputation built through long investment in a name. From this perspective, enforcing its rights consistently is necessary even where the other publication is small.
The case against
Dogue can reasonably argue that it is an independent, clearly dog-focused publication with an established identity dating from 2019, making confusion with Vogue unlikely for its specialist audience. Port may also contend that a powerful publisher’s legal action poses a disproportionate threat to a tiny creator, particularly when Vogue later used “Dogue” for similar dog-centred online content. From this perspective, the case raises concerns about whether trademark enforcement is being used to suppress a distinctive small competitor rather than to address meaningful consumer harm.