The Lululemon vs Costco “Lululemon Dupes”
Costco’s private-label Kirkland Signature line is famously affordable. But now it’s facing legal heat for selling what Lululemon calls “duplication doppelgängers” of their high-end athletic wear—starting with men’s ABC pants, Scuba hoodies, and Define jackets (WSJ).
What’s Lululemon’s Argument?
Lululemon alleges that Costco copied the visual aspects protected under design patents and trade dress, along with trademarked colors (like Lululemon’s “Tidewater Teal”) #lululemondupes. They claim the similarities cause actual consumer confusion—especially since Costco sources from the same manufacturers as Lululemon.
(Credit: Lululemon court filings).
Functional vs. Ornamental: Where It Gets Legally Tricky
Designers like Joe Ng have pointed out that many allegedly copied features—like gussets, pocket cuts, and seams—are widely used in activewear for function, not form. That nuance matters in court. The U.S. legal system requires proof of non-functional ornamental features to support design patent or trade dress claims (Business Insider).
Lululemon will also need to prove actual consumer confusion, not just a visual resemblance. This can be tough when the products are sold at vastly different price points.
Public Sympathy, Legal Complexity
In the court of public opinion, people are rooting for Costco. Many find “dupes” savvy—or at least relatable. In fact, hashtags like “#lululemondupes” are often marketing gold for budget-conscious shoppers.
Ironically, Lululemon’s lawsuit may have helped boost awareness and sales for the very product it seeks to ban. (Financial Times)
Why This Matters to Entrepreneurs
Whether you’re a new brand or scaling one, this case offers lessons:
- Trade Dress Isn’t Automatic: You must prove your product design is distinctive and non-functional to enforce it.
- Register Design Patents Early: This allows you to claim ornamental uniqueness, even if the product is later “duped.”
- Document Consumer Confusion: Save reviews, comments, or emails where customers mix up your brand with a competitor.
- Monitor Your Supply Chain: If a former buyer or manufacturer starts copying your product, your claim is stronger with documentation.
(Credit: Lululemon court filings).
Legal Perspective: What This Teaches Us About Design Protection and Trade Dress Strategy
As a registered patent and trademark attorney, here’s how I’d break down the legal implications of this case for brands of any size:
1. Design Patents Are Underused But Powerful — When Done Right
Lululemon’s lawsuit appears to lean on both trade dress and design patent rights. However, many founders overlook design patents entirely. These patents protect the ornamental appearance of a product, not how it functions. They’re fast to obtain (12–18 months), relatively affordable, and highly enforceable—if the design is novel and filed on time.
Key takeaway: If your product has a distinctive look—even in fashion or consumer goods—you should consider filing for design patent protection before launching. It can become your best asset when someone tries to copy you later.
2. Trade Dress Claims Must Be Built Over Time
Lululemon’s trade dress claim hinges on proving that their products’ look and feel are so distinctive that consumers associate them with the brand. Courts call this “secondary meaning.”
The problem? Secondary meaning doesn’t arise overnight. You need to show consistent, exclusive use—plus marketing, customer recognition, and evidence of confusion. If your product’s features are mostly functional (like pockets or drawstrings), courts may view them as generic and unprotectable.
Key takeaway: Don’t assume that just because something “looks like yours,” you can sue. You must be able to prove consumers associate that look with your brand—and that it’s not functional.
3. The Supply Chain Problem: IP Starts With Contracts
One of the most revealing elements of this case is that Lululemon and Costco reportedly used the same manufacturers. This is not uncommon, especially in fashion and consumer electronics. When overseas factories work with multiple brands, they might reuse your patterns, templates, or tech—unless you have ironclad agreements in place.
Key takeaway: Your IP strategy isn’t just about trademarks and patents—it’s also about contracts, NDAs, and manufacturer oversight. Make sure your agreements state clearly who owns the designs, who can reproduce them, and what happens if your IP is misused.
4. What Could Lululemon Have Done Differently?
- Filed more design patents, earlier and more broadly (color, shape, stitching, trim).
- Registered more of their product names and filed trade dress claims sooner.
- Better documentation of actual consumer confusion—reviews, emails, complaints.
What Could Costco Have Done Differently?
- Differentiated their product more visibly in the market (colorways, trims, naming).
- Avoided echoing Lululemon’s visual marketing language or model poses.
- Conducted a clearance search before launching products that looked like Lululemon’s (we all know a license here might have been out of the question.)
(Credit: Lululemon court filings).
Final Legal Thought
This case reminds us that IP isn’t just a shield—it’s a growth strategy. Whether you’re defending your market share or expanding it, your brand’s legal infrastructure should be as thoughtfully designed as your product.
At Innovent Law, we help brands like yours build portfolios that not only protect but attract buyers, partners, and investors.
Let me know if you’d like this formatted into a sidebar or pull-quote layout for your blog — or if you want this adapted into a LinkedIn legal breakdown post.
👉 Contact Us at Innovent Law
👉 Explore Our Design Patent Services
👉 Learn More About Trade Dress
👉 Book Your IP Strategy Session