Lululemon sues Costco over alleged sale of 'dupes' copying $128 pants
In a lawsuit filed Friday in California, Lululemon alleges Costco has 'unlawfully traded' on the brand's 'reputation, goodwill and sweat equity by selling unauthorized and unlicensed apparel employing knockoff, infringing versions' of its products.
Lululemon, for example, sells its popular ABC men's pants for $128 – and alleges that a pair of Costco pants that retail for just $10 rip off their design.
Advertisement
Leggings and yoga pants on display in a Lululemon store in New York.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Its Scuba hoodies sell for $118, while Costco's private label Kirkland Signature sells copycat sweatshirts for $8, the company alleged in the suit.
'As an innovation-led company that invests significantly in the research, development and design of our products, we take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary,' Lululemon told The Post in a statement.
The Vancouver-based company is accusing Costco of leading customers to believe that these dupes, slang for duplicates, 'are in fact manufactured by the authentic supplier of the 'original' products.'
Advertisement
Lululemon and Costco did not immediately respond to The Post's requests for comment.
Lululemon claimed it sent the Washington-based big box retailer a letter in November 2024 accusing it of selling hoodies using the Scuba design.
Costco 'subsequently removed at least some of the products that infringed lululemon's SCUBA,' but later started selling similar products, according to the lawsuit.
Advertisement
The retailer is still selling the alleged dupes today, Lululemon said in the suit.
Clothing folded on tables at a Costco store in New Jersey.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
The luxury leggings maker is seeking to 'fully recover' financial losses through unspecified damages and a court order to block Costco from selling the products.
Lululemon has gone after alleged copycats in the past, suing stationary bike giant Peloton in 2021 for allegedly selling apparel using similar designs.
Advertisement
That suit was settled in 2022, and the companies announced a five-year partnership the following year to sell co-branded clothing.
Lululemon recently slashed its full-year forecast, citing a 'dynamic macroenvironment' with added costs from tariffs, low demand amid economic uncertainty and heated competition from other athletic brands.
Shares of Lululemon jumped 2.2% Tuesday.
The stock is down 36% so far this year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Dupe Lawsuits Like LuluLemon's Are Rare—And Hard To Win
Topline Luxury athletic wear brand Lululemon has sued Costco in federal court and accused the big box store of selling products that purposefully rip off some its most popular items for a fraction of the price—the latest lawsuit to come out of an increasingly prevalent 'dupe culture' that has left big-name companies with little recourse against brands that produce copycat products for less. A customer enters a Lululemon store in Corte Madera, California. Getty Images Key Facts In a lawsuit filed in California, Lululemon accused Costco of selling and, in one case, manufacturing knockoffs of its Scuba sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants. The complaint alleged trade dress infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, patent infringement and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, and asks that Lululemon be compensated for the lost profits and "significant harm" done to its brands and reputation. Costco, which did not respond to request for comment from Forbes on Tuesday, could be forced to pay up if Lululemon prevails, but winning a trademark infringement lawsuit over dupe products is a tall order. Dozens of successful brands have sued over the increasing production of dupes in the last several years, but proving a product was copied isn't enough to win—the original producer must also show that the copycat product could actually 'dupe' customers into believing the knockoffs are the real thing. The onus of proving the copycat product actually confused customers and impacted the original manufacturer's business falls on the originating company, New York trademark lawyer Karl Zielaznick told Forbes, and it's very hard to prove: 'Customers often know that they aren't buying a $5,000 watch for $100… They know it's a different, dupe product,' he said. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. Key Background The prevalence of 'dupe culture' has skyrocketed in the last decade, largely thanks to TikTok, as customers search for and buy products that are cheaper, almost identical versions of high-end items. As opposed to generations before who "may have shopped for knockoffs on the sly," Jennifer Baker of creator management platform Grin told The Guardian, young people are now happy to buy knockoff products and share their finds with the world. TikTok videos with #dupe hashtag have racked up more than 6 billion views, and shoppers can easily find counterfeits for everything from a $600 hair tool to a $40 face wash. Because shoppers are happily and knowingly buying the fake products, nobody is actually being duped into thinking knock-offs are the real thing, Zielaznick explained, which makes it much harder to prove brand confusion. Surprising Fact In December, the e.l.f. Cosmetics company admitted in federal court that it created a mascara product called the Lash 'N Roll specifically meant to mimic the Hook N' Roll brush of Benefit Cosmetics' Roller Lash mascara, which has produced $278 million in revenue from U.S. sales since 2015. E.l.f released its product in 2022, and the two mascaras are packaged and marked similarly. Despite the admission and similarities, a judge ruled that the e.l.f. product did not infringe on the trademark or trade dress of Benefit Cosmetics because it was very unlikely customers would ever actually confuse the two products. To win, Benefit would have had to prove e.l.f. had managed to actually dupe buyers, which the company failed to do. Crucial Quote 'It's not enough to have someone admit they looked at or were inspired by your product,' Zielaznick said. 'You have to be able to prove in some other way that this is harming you. There has to be a true attempt by the dupe manufacturer to deceive, and it's very hard to prove that that intent exists.' What To Watch For The verdict in pending trademark lawsuits. Snack giant Mondelez International has sued grocery chain Aldi over claims the store is mimicking the packaging of cookies like Oreo, Chips Ahoy! and Nutter Butter with the intention of confusing customers. Williams-Sonoma is suing a website called which allows shoppers to search for products that look eerily similar to something they liked online, and American Eagle is suing Amazon over claims it ripped off branding from the Aerie clothing line to confuse online shoppers. Deckers, the parent company of Ugg, is suing Quince for alleged trademark infringement related to a copycat version of its UGG Classic Ultra Mini boots. Further Reading Forbes Do Trademarks Still Matter In 2025? Forbes Earth, Wind & Firing Off: A Cautionary Tale Of Trademark Infringement In The Music Industry Forbes Nike Stole Company's Trademark, Then Tried To Bury It In Legal Bills, Court-Ordered Report Says
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tinder rolls out mandatory face verification for California users
West Hollywood-based Tinder is now requiring facial recognition scans for all users in California as part of its efforts to build trust among users and reduce the prevalence of scams and fraud that plague dating apps. The feature, called Face Check, prompts users to take a short video selfie that is used to verify their identity. The verification data allows Tinder, owned by Match Group, to check whether a person's face matches their uploaded photos. The scan is also used to check other photos on the app to detect if a user is impersonating someone else or operating duplicate accounts. The technology is from a company called FaceTec. Users' verification data will be stored for the lifetime of their Tinder account and deleted within 30 days of account closure. 'As part of our continued efforts, we are always testing ways to deliver the best experience for our users to seek authentic connections,' a Tinder spokesperson said. While Tinder already offers photo and ID verification features, they are optional. Face Check will be mandatory in some places in hopes of stopping bad actors and bots who rarely opt into voluntary verification measures. The new function is 'about confirming that this person is a real, live person and not a bot or a spoofed account,' said Yoel Roth, Match Group's vice president of trust and safety. Tinder has been adding safety features to help users feel more comfortable on the app, including 'Are You Sure?' and 'Does This Bother You?' prompts that pop up to police potentially unwelcome interactions, as well as newer additions like Share My Date. The timing of this pilot program comes as romance scams become more prevalent across the United States. Romance scammers typically create fake profiles on dating platforms or contact victims through social media platforms. They build relationships over time through frequent communication before fabricating emergencies and requesting money from their targets. With over 60 million Americans using online dating services in 2023, the stakes are significant. The Federal Trade Commission reported that romance scams cost victims more than $1.1 billion, highlighting the scale of the problem. Congressional action is also underway to address these concerns. The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Romance Scam Prevention Act on June 23, which would require dating apps to notify users when they have interacted with someone removed from the platform for fraudulent activity. Face Check is already being used in Canada and Colombia.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Constellation Brands: Fiscal Q1 Earnings Snapshot
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — Constellation Brands Inc. (STZ) on Tuesday reported fiscal first-quarter earnings of $516.1 million. The Rochester, New York-based company said it had net income of $2.90 per share. Earnings, adjusted for non-recurring costs, came to $3.22 per share. The results fell short of Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of nine analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of $3.34 per share. The wine, liquor and beer company posted revenue of $2.68 billion in the period. Its adjusted revenue was $2.52 billion, also falling short of Street forecasts. Seven analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $2.57 billion. Constellation Brands expects full-year earnings in the range of $12.60 to $12.90 per share. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on STZ at Sign in to access your portfolio
