Lululemon Alleges Costco Sold Copycat Apparel to Mislead Shoppers
Lululemon sues Costco in federal court, accusing the retailer of selling knockoff athletic wear meant to confuse consumers. They filed the complaint on June 27 in the Central District of California, claiming Costco’s private-label brands produce “dupes” of its iconic styles at dramatically lower prices.
The complaint claims that these knock off goods damage Lululemon’s reputation and goodwill by “creating an improper association” with the upscale sportswear brand.
Signature Styles Allegedly Imitated by Costco Brands
According to the suit, Costco’s products closely mimic Lululemon’s famous:
- Scuba hoodies
- Half-zip pullovers
- Yoga jackets
- ABC pants
Costco’s items, such as the Hi-Tec Men’s Scuba Full Zip (sold for ~$20) and the Kirkland 5 Pocket Performance Pant, are highlighted as visually similar to Lululemon’s styles, which retail for over $100.
Lululemon Claims Consumer Confusion and Brand Dilution
The lawsuit asserts that Costco intentionally marketed these products to mimic Lululemon. Online influencers have used the hashtag #LululemonDupes to promote the cheaper alternatives.
“One purpose of selling ‘dupes’ is to confuse consumers into believing the copycats are authentic Lululemon products,” the complaint states.
Lululemon says such confusion violates its intellectual property rights, devalues its design patents, and harms the brand’s premium positioning in the market.
Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Sales and Recover Damages
Lululemon is seeking:
- A permanent injunction blocking Costco from selling these “infringing” items
- An unspecified amount of monetary damages
- Compensation for lost sales and reputational harm
The company emphasized its commitment to innovation and IP protection in a statement to CBS News, saying:
“We take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously.”
Costco has yet to respond publicly to the claims.
The Dupes Argument: Originality or Copying?
Although Costco is frequently commended for providing affordable alternatives to expensive products, this case presents new legal issues about the distinction between inspiration and infringement.
Given the rise in popularity of dupes on social media, this case may establish a standard for how companies preserve their design integrity in a culture that encourages copying.
Source: People
