lululemon Athletica, the high-end athleisure giant, has filed a major federal lawsuit against warehouse retail titan costco Wholesale. The core accusation? Costco is allegedly selling clothing products that are strikingly similar to Lululemon’s signature designs. This similarity, Lululemon contends, isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate move to capitalize on Lululemon’s reputation and confuses consumers into buying cheaper “dupes.” The suit was lodged in a California federal court, sparking significant discussion in the retail and intellectual property spheres.
The Heart of the Lululemon vs. Costco Legal Battle
Filed on June 27, 2025, the complaint from Lululemon targets specific items sold by Costco. Lululemon claims these products infringe upon its trademarked designs and “trade dress.” Trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product or packaging, not just logos. Lululemon argues that Costco is illegally profiting by trading on the goodwill and extensive effort Lululemon has invested in its unique apparel designs. The lawsuit describes the Costco items as “unauthorized and unlicensed apparel employing knockoff, infringing versions” of Lululemon’s well-known designs.
This legal action highlights a growing tension between premium brands and retailers offering lower-cost lookalikes. While “dupes” have long existed, their promotion through social media has amplified their impact. Lululemon’s lawsuit uses this visibility as evidence. It cites media coverage and social media trends where consumers actively identify and share photos or videos of Costco products they perceive as nearly identical copies of Lululemon items, often using hashtags like #luludupe.
Specific Products at the Center of the Dispute
Lululemon’s complaint lists six particular products sold by Costco that it alleges violate its intellectual property. These items are claimed to be “confusingly similar” to some of Lululemon’s most popular designs.
The target Lululemon products include:
Scuba Hoodies/Sweatshirts: Known for their distinct fit and construction.
Define Jackets: Fitted, athletic jackets with specific design elements.
Men’s ABC Pants: Stretch pants resembling khaki pants, famous for comfort and technical features.
Costco’s allegedly infringing products include:
A Kirkland Signature pair of men’s performance pants (likened to the ABC Pants).
Five jackets and hoodies sold under third-party brands carried by Costco:
Danskin Ladies Half-Zip Hoodie
Danskin Half-Zip Pullover
Jockey Ladies Yoga Jacket
Spyder Women’s Yoga Jacket
Hi-Tec Men’s Scuba Full Zip (likened to the Scuba Hoodie).
Lululemon points to the significant price difference as part of the issue. For instance, a Lululemon Scuba hoodie retails for $118, while a comparable item at Costco might sell for around $20. The Define jacket sells for $128, contrasted with a Spyder women’s yoga jacket reportedly priced at $21.90 at Costco. Lululemon contends these cheap lookalikes devalue its brand.
Allegations of Consumer Confusion
A central pillar of Lululemon’s case is the claim of consumer confusion. They argue that the alleged “knockoff” designs are so similar that they violate trademark law. Lululemon posits two types of confusion:
- Point-of-Sale Confusion: Customers might mistakenly believe the infringing products are authentic Lululemon apparel when they see them in Costco stores.
- Post-Sale Confusion: Even if purchased knowingly as an alternative, the products are so difficult to distinguish from authentic Lululemon goods that they mislead observers after the purchase.
Lululemon’s lawsuit contends that a primary goal behind selling such similar “dupes” is precisely to exploit this potential for consumer confusion regarding the items’ true origin. The company, which describes itself as a “path-breaking” leader in performance athletic wear, emphasizes that its unique “construction techniques” and “strategic fits” are part of its brand identity.
Prior Warnings and Requested Outcomes
Lululemon asserts it had previously attempted to resolve the issue with Costco before filing the lawsuit. The company states it sent a complaint to Costco in November regarding some of these items. According to Lululemon, Costco did respond and allegedly stopped selling some of the products identified as violating Lululemon’s designs. However, Lululemon claims not all the infringing items were removed from sale.
Having failed to reach a full resolution, Lululemon is now pursuing legal remedies through the court system. In the lawsuit, Lululemon requests a jury trial to hear the case.
The company is seeking significant damages. This includes compensation for lost profits it believes resulted from Costco offering the allegedly similar, lower-priced products. Beyond financial compensation, Lululemon also asks the court for an injunction. This court order would compel Costco to immediately cease manufacturing, importing, advertising, and selling the products Lululemon claims are counterfeit or confusingly similar. Lululemon also wants Costco to remove related advertisements.
Broader Context and Implications
This lawsuit isn’t Lululemon’s first foray into protecting its intellectual property through legal means. The company previously settled a lawsuit against exercise equipment firm Peloton in 2022 over similar claims regarding apparel designs. In 2012, Lululemon also took action against Calvin Klein concerning a design patent for a yoga pant waistband, settling confidentially later that year. These past actions underscore Lululemon’s stated commitment to defending its designs and trade dress rights. A spokesperson for Lululemon reiterated this stance, emphasizing the company’s investment in research, development, and design and its seriousness about intellectual property protection.
The case unfolds amidst a backdrop where consumers, potentially influenced by inflation, are increasingly seeking affordable alternatives to premium brands. Social media platforms have become significant drivers of this “dupe” culture. While some consumers intentionally seek out these lower-cost options aware they are not the original, Lululemon’s argument centers on the potential for genuine confusion about origin and the alleged leveraging of their established brand identity.
Costco has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit. The financial markets showed minimal immediate reaction, with the stock prices for both Lululemon (LULU) and Costco (COST) reportedly seeing only slight movement in premarket trading following the news. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent regarding the protection of design patents and trade dress for apparel in the retail sector, potentially influencing how closely retailers can mimic premium brand aesthetics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is Lululemon alleging in the lawsuit against Costco?
Lululemon is alleging that Costco is infringing on its intellectual property rights, specifically trademark, trade dress, and design patents. The lawsuit claims Costco is selling apparel products that are “confusingly similar” to Lululemon’s distinct designs for items like Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants. Lululemon argues that selling these lookalike products, often referred to as “dupes,” unlawfully trades on Lululemon’s reputation and confuses consumers about the origin of the items.
Which specific products are involved in the Lululemon vs. Costco lawsuit?
Lululemon’s lawsuit targets several of its popular designs and lists six specific Costco products it claims are infringing. These include the Lululemon Scuba Hoodies, Define Jackets, and Men’s ABC Pants. The corresponding Costco items are a Kirkland Signature men’s performance pant, and jackets and hoodies from Danskin, Jockey, Spyder, and Hi-Tec sold in Costco stores. Lululemon provided photographic comparisons in its court filing to show the alleged similarities.
How could this Lululemon lawsuit impact the sale of ‘dupes’ at stores like Costco?
If Lululemon wins this lawsuit, it could have significant implications for the retail industry and the “dupe” trend. A ruling favoring Lululemon could lead to a court order (injunction) preventing Costco from selling the specific infringing products and potentially others found to be too similar. It could also result in Costco having to pay damages for lost profits. More broadly, a successful case for Lululemon might establish stronger legal precedent for protecting apparel designs and trade dress, potentially making retailers more cautious about selling close lookalikes of premium brand items in the future.
