Lululemon’s ‘Dupes’ Suit Signals Brands Must Shape Narrative

In a recent Bloomberg Opinion piece, Andrea Felsted captured how we’re living in the height of copycat consumerism, where replicating elements of brand identity has shifted from exception to expectation.

To intellectual property counsel, this brand creep is far more insidious than the knockoff athleisure or fake cosmetics may appear. Brands are being eroded by the so-called greatest form of flattery, imitation. In this environment, brands must prioritize trademark and design protection as a core business function—and shape the broader narrative around dupe culture.

The Lululemon v. Costco battle is a prime example of dupe culture’s evolution. A well-known retailer sued a multibillion-dollar wholesaler not over individual product revenue, but over the wider reaching implications of a company’s imposition on one’s brand.

The issue is nuanced. Costco Wholesale Corp. has launched its own range of activewear, which bears a startling resemblance to Lululemon Athletica Inc.’s signature pieces. Costco isn’t directly marketing these lookalike items as “Lululemon dupes” or using the brand’s name or logo in any promotional material.

Instead, the influencer economy is fueling this phenomenon. Influencers have been sharing posts claiming that the products are “Lululemon dupes,” and savvy shoppers have quickly taken note. Dupe yoga tops and other items have run off the shelves as a result. The social media movement promoting Costco’s products as a smarter choice has changed shoppers’ perception of dupes being an embarrassing alternative for those who can’t afford the genuine thing.

This creates a problem for all premium brands. Many dupes legally don’t fall under traditional trademark protections. Without brand logos being imitated or brand names being copied, which is the case with fake or counterfeit goods, traditional trademark infringement arguments aren’t available.

Still, the impact can be significant. Brands such as Lululemon also must justify why their products cost many times more than the lookalikes—and feelalikes—that influencers declare are of comparable quality. In practice, luxury brands are competing against a narrative that implies they take advantage of their customers.

High-end and globally recognized labels are particularly at risk. Both dupe copycats and outright illegal counterfeits exploit the very qualities that make these brands valuable: deep brand equity, insatiable consumer appetite, and premium pricing. Nearly a third of US adults admit to deliberately purchasing cheaper replicas of premium or luxury pieces—clear evidence that the dupe culture has become part of mainstream consumer behavior.

For the brands affected, the danger isn’t just lost sales but the steady dilution of identity and damage to their reputation as luxurious, high-end goods. Lululemon knows that, and its lawsuit signals that it’s time for brands to weave IP protection into the very fabric of their business models.

Supply chains are murky and sprawling, while social algorithms can turn a runway moment into a global sales trend within hours. Copying a winning formula has never been quicker, the rewards for imitators have never been more appealing, and the defense strategy has never been more complex.

In the US, protecting fashion designs against copycats is challenging, as there’s limited legal recourse to protect designs per se if logos or brand names aren’t copied outright. By contrast, UK and EU law give protection for unregistered design rights for the original shape or configuration of the whole or part of an article. This protection arises automatically, and it’s an infringement of such unregistered right to copy the design to produce an article that is the same as or substantially the same as the design.

Although this can be a very helpful right in the war against dupes, it’s still necessary to prove copying. In the case of Costco’s dupes, the court might infer that there has been copying based on the Lululemon products’ wide availability at the time the dupes appeared, the number of dupes that appeared in Costco, and the close similarity between the dupes and the Lululemon designs.

In cases where it’s harder to show copying, businesses should at least use registered design rights to protect core designs against dupes where possible. Registered protection lasts longer and doesn’t require there to be copying.

That doesn’t mean trademark protections should be left on the sidelines. The best defense is still to protect as many facets of a brand as possible—such as color palettes, patterns, and shapes—to ensure maximum protection of a brand’s equity.

The battle can’t be won in the courtroom alone; Lululemon and its luxury brand counterparts need to combat the narrative surrounding dupe culture. Copycat goods have been put on a pedestal, heralded as the smart shopper’s key to luxury goods at a fraction of the price.

But that framing undermines the value of originality, design integrity, and craftsmanship. Brands must reclaim the story. That means launching educational initiatives outlining these traits and explaining why their brand demands a premium price—all while making their stance against dupes visible and working closely with influencers who value authenticity.

Hermès International SCA’s litigation against MetaBirkins is a textbook example. The fashion house knew brand equity wasn’t confined to physical products—it’s a living reputation, shaped across physical and digital worlds.

If the battleground shifts, so must the strategy. The lesson for the industry is clear. Protect the assets, control the story, define the future.

Former Prada SpA CEO Patrizio Bertelli once said, “We don’t want to be a brand that nobody wants to copy.” But being copied is no compliment if it hurts the long-term health of your business. The brands that seek to reclaim their narrative, while treating protection and enforcement as a core business function and not an afterthought, will be the ones that emerge from the cultural shift on dupes with their integrity, consumer trust, and market share intact.

The case is lululemon athletica canada inc. et al v. Costco Wholesale Corp., C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-05864, Complaint 6/27/25.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Kirsten Gilbert is a partner and head of brand exploitation, protection, and trademark litigation UK at Marks & Clerk Law.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines