The $118 Lululemon hoodie and the $8 Costco lookalike sitting side-by-side on a TikTok screen represent more than a price comparison. They’re the front lines of a legal battle that could reshape how every business protects its brand in the age of viral dupes.
In July 2025, Lululemon filed a federal lawsuit against Costco that goes far beyond athletic wear. This case signals a turning point for any business whose success depends on distinctive product design, unique color schemes, or recognizable aesthetic elements. Whether you sell cosmetics, furniture, technology accessories, or any product with visual appeal, the legal strategies coming out of this case will affect how you protect your brand.
As a licensed trademark attorney who has filed over 6,000 trademark applications with the United States Patent & Trademark Office, I’ve seen how quickly distinctive products can be copied once they gain market traction. The difference today is that social media has turned product duplication from a slow-moving threat into a viral phenomenon that can saturate your market within weeks.
The Quick Summary:
Lululemon’s 2025 lawsuit against Costco reveals how social media has transformed product duplication from a slow threat into a viral phenomenon that can saturate markets within weeks. Traditional trademark law is adapting to address “dupe culture,” where consumers knowingly buy lookalikes while social media influencers build businesses around showcasing affordable alternatives to premium brands. Smart business owners are building intellectual property protection before dupe culture discovers their products, not after competitors flood the market with $8 versions of their $118 designs.
The Lululemon Wake-Up Call: What Every Business Owner Needs to Know
Case Breakdown and Legal Claims
Lululemon’s lawsuit targets six specific products sold by Costco, including a Danskin half-zip pullover that retails for $8.97 compared to Lululemon’s $118 Scuba hoodie. The price difference alone tells the story, but the legal claims reveal sophisticated strategies that any business can learn from.
Lululemon built its case on three distinct legal theories:
- Trade dress infringement protects the overall look and feel of products. Lululemon argues that consumers associate specific design elements like hood shapes, zipper placements, and seamline patterns with their brand. When Costco sells products with similar visual characteristics, it allegedly creates confusion about the source.
- Design patent violations focus on ornamental features covered by U.S. Patent Nos. D989,442 and D1,035,219. These patents protect specific aesthetic elements of Lululemon’s apparel designs. Unlike utility patents that protect how something works, design patents protect how something looks.
- Trademark disputes over product names and colors present the most interesting challenge. Lululemon claims rights to “Scuba” as a product name and “Tidewater Teal” as a distinctive color identifier. The strength of these claims will likely determine the case outcome.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Fashion
Dupe culture has evolved from simple knockoffs to legitimate business models built around replication. TikTok hashtags like #LululemonDupe generate millions of views, creating instant demand for affordable alternatives. Influencers build entire followings by showcasing side-by-side comparisons of expensive products and their budget lookalikes.
Companies like Shein, Fashion Nova, and Amazon’s private labels have turned this trend into billion-dollar businesses. They monitor trending products, analyze design elements, and launch similar items within days or weeks. The speed of modern manufacturing combined with social media marketing creates a perfect storm for brand owners.
Your industry probably faces the same risks, regardless of product category. Beauty brands see exact color matches in packaging and formulations. Furniture manufacturers watch as their signature pieces appear in mass market stores with minor modifications. Technology companies find their distinctive cases and accessories replicated across e-commerce platforms.
The precedent question looms large: Will courts adapt traditional trademark law to address viral consumer behavior where customers knowingly purchase lookalikes while understanding they’re not buying the original brand?
Your Legal Protection Options: What Works and What Doesn’t
Trade Dress Protection: Your Product’s Distinctive Look
Trade dress protection covers non-functional design elements that consumers associate with your brand. Think of Coca-Cola’s distinctive bottle shape or the specific shade of blue used by Tiffany & Co. for packaging. These visual identifiers can receive trademark protection when they develop secondary meaning in the marketplace.
Lululemon’s strategy demonstrates how to build trade dress protection systematically. The company documented specific design elements like the curved hemlines of their Define jackets, the particular hood construction of Scuba pullovers, and the strategic placement of thumbholes in sleeves. Each element serves an aesthetic rather than purely functional purpose.
The functionality trap catches many businesses attempting trade dress protection. Courts won’t protect features that are essential to the product’s use or purpose. A zipper placement that provides better ventilation during exercise might be considered functional rather than ornamental. However, the specific angle of that zipper or its decorative stitching pattern could qualify for protection.
Building secondary meaning requires evidence that consumers recognize your design elements as indicators of brand source. Customer surveys, sales data, advertising expenditures, and media coverage all help establish this connection. The stronger your brand recognition, the better your trade dress protection.
Design Patents and Trademark Rights
Design patents offer 15 years of protection for ornamental features of functional items. Unlike trade dress, design patents don’t require proof of secondary meaning. If your design is new and non-obvious, you can secure protection before your product even launches.
The key advantage of design patents is their strength in litigation. Infringement occurs when an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to your patented design. This standard favors patent holders more than other intellectual property theories.
Lululemon’s design patents cover specific ornamental aspects of their apparel construction. Patent D989,442 protects particular seamline arrangements and proportional relationships in athletic tops. Patent D1,035,219 covers distinctive hood and collar configurations. These patents create clear boundaries around aesthetic choices that competitors must avoid.
Color and name protection through trademark law presents more complex challenges. Lululemon’s “Tidewater Teal” registration demonstrates how color names can receive protection when they function as brand identifiers rather than mere descriptions. The trademark must distinguish products in the marketplace and avoid simply describing the color itself.
“Scuba” faces stronger challenges because the term appears throughout the apparel industry to describe fabric weight and neoprene-inspired designs. A search of USPTO records reveals 18 live trademark registrations containing “Scuba” in clothing classifications. Costco will likely argue fair use, claiming they’re describing fabric characteristics rather than referencing Lululemon’s trademark.
Strategic timing matters critically for all forms of protection. Design patents must be filed within one year of public disclosure. Trademark applications work best when filed before competitors enter the market. Trade dress protection develops over time through consistent use and marketing. (Read more on trademarks vs patents to understand their difference.)
The Social Media Complication: When Customers Want Dupes
The Confusion Paradox
Traditional trademark law asks whether consumers might believe they’re purchasing the original brand when buying a similar product. This likelihood of confusion test assumes customers want authentic goods and might be deceived by similarities.
Dupe culture flips this assumption entirely. Consumers often seek out lookalikes specifically because they’re not the authentic product. They want the aesthetic at a lower price point and proudly share their “finds” on social media. TikTok videos regularly feature creators saying “This isn’t Lululemon, but it looks just like it for $20!”
This knowing purchase behavior creates fascinating legal questions. If consumers understand they’re buying imitations, can trademark holders still claim confusion? Some courts have found that initial interest confusion still occurs when shoppers first see products and assume they’re viewing the original brand, even if they learn the truth before purchase.
Evidence collection in the TikTok age requires new approaches. Traditional consumer surveys asked hypothetical questions about product origins. Today’s evidence includes screenshots of social media posts, influencer marketing campaigns, and hashtag analytics showing how consumers actually discuss and purchase disputed products.
User-generated content often provides the best evidence of confusion or lack thereof. When TikTok users caption videos with #LululemonDupe while showing Costco products, they simultaneously acknowledge the original brand and demonstrate that alternatives are being marketed based on similarity.
Learning from Lululemon’s Enforcement Strategy
Lululemon’s current case against Costco follows a pattern established in their 2021 lawsuit against Peloton. The company sued Peloton for trade dress infringement related to private-label activewear that allegedly copied Lululemon’s designs. Rather than proceeding to trial, the parties reached a confidential settlement and announced a five-year partnership making Lululemon the primary athletic apparel partner for Peloton.
This strategic approach treats litigation as business development rather than pure legal enforcement. High-profile lawsuits serve multiple purposes: they deter other potential copycats, reinforce brand strength in the marketplace, and create opportunities for licensing or partnership discussions.
The deterrence effect cannot be understated. When major brands like Lululemon file federal lawsuits against retailers like Costco, smaller companies take notice. The message spreads throughout the industry that copying distinctive designs carries real legal and financial risks.
Alternative responses show creativity in addressing dupe culture directly. Lululemon’s “Dupe Swap” campaign in Los Angeles invited consumers to trade their knockoff Align leggings for authentic products. The event generated positive publicity while converting dupe buyers into genuine customers. According to the company, 50% of participants were new customers who had never purchased authentic Lululemon products.
This marketing approach acknowledges dupe culture reality while positioning the authentic brand as superior. Rather than fighting consumer behavior, smart companies find ways to channel it toward their business goals.
Building Your Brand Defense Strategy
The businesses that survive dupe culture attacks are those that build protection before they need it. Waiting until competitors copy your products leaves you fighting from a defensive position with limited options.
Start with trademark registration for your most distinctive elements. Product names that go beyond mere description can receive strong protection. Color combinations that consumers associate with your brand deserve registration priority. Unique design features that serve aesthetic rather than functional purposes should be documented and potentially trademarked.
Design patent applications require careful timing and scope decisions. File applications within one year of any public disclosure, including social media posts, trade show appearances, or product launches. Consider multiple applications covering different aspects of your designs rather than trying to protect everything in a single patent.
Documentation builds your foundation for all forms of protection. Maintain records of design development processes, marketing campaigns that highlight distinctive features, customer feedback referencing specific aesthetic elements, and media coverage that discusses your product’s unique characteristics.
Monitoring systems provide early warning when potential infringement appears. Professional watch services can track new trademark applications, domain registrations, and product launches in your industry. Social media monitoring tools help identify when hashtags or content creators begin promoting products similar to yours.
The most effective monitoring combines automated tools with manual review. While software can catch obvious similarities in product names or visual elements, human judgment identifies subtler forms of copying that algorithms might miss.
Response Options When Dupes Appear
Assessment comes first when you discover potential infringement. Not every similar product deserves legal action. Consider the strength of your intellectual property rights, the likelihood of consumer confusion, the commercial impact of the competing product, and the costs of enforcement versus potential benefits.
Strong cases typically involve registered trademarks or design patents, clear evidence of copying, significant market overlap, and defendants with sufficient assets to make litigation worthwhile. Weak cases might involve purely functional similarities, descriptive product names, or situations where your rights haven’t been properly secured.
Platform takedown procedures offer cost-effective enforcement for online infringement. Amazon, eBay, Instagram, and TikTok all have intellectual property reporting systems that can remove infringing content or products. These procedures work best with registered intellectual property rights and clear evidence of violation.
Cease and desist letters can resolve disputes quickly when drafted properly. Effective letters cite specific intellectual property rights, identify particular infringing features, and propose reasonable resolution paths. Overly aggressive letters might backfire by generating negative publicity or prompting declaratory judgment actions.
Industry partnerships leverage collective enforcement power. Trade associations often coordinate anti-counterfeiting efforts, share information about problematic manufacturers, and provide resources for smaller companies facing infringement.
Business alternatives to legal enforcement sometimes prove more effective than litigation. Innovation that makes copying more difficult through technical complexity, exclusive supplier relationships, or rapidly evolving designs can stay ahead of imitators. Consumer education campaigns that highlight quality differences, manufacturing processes, or brand values help justify premium pricing.
Strategic differentiation focuses on elements that cannot be easily copied. Brand community building, customer service excellence, and experiential marketing create loyalty that transcends aesthetic similarities.
Industry-Specific Risks and Future Considerations
High-Risk Categories
Beauty and cosmetics face particular vulnerability to dupe culture. Color matching technology allows competitors to replicate exact shades in foundations, lipsticks, and eyeshadows. Packaging similarities in shape, size, and graphic design create confusion at retail. The viral nature of beauty content on social media accelerates the spread of dupe recommendations.
Home goods and furniture encounter different challenges. Classic designs often lack copyright protection, making them easy targets for mass market reproduction. The long product development cycles in furniture manufacturing give competitors time to analyze successful pieces and create similar versions before original manufacturers can respond.
Technology accessories benefit from faster innovation cycles but face global manufacturing networks capable of rapid replication. Phone cases, chargers, and wearable devices with distinctive designs find themselves copied within weeks of launch, often manufactured in the same facilities producing authentic goods.
Special challenges affect different business types disproportionately. Seasonal businesses in fashion or holiday goods must move quickly since their protection windows align with short selling seasons. Small manufacturers often lack resources for extensive intellectual property portfolios or enforcement actions. Global brands face complex international enforcement across multiple legal systems.
The Future of Brand Protection
Legal evolution continues as courts learn to evaluate social media evidence and adapt traditional confusion analysis to modern consumer behavior. Judges increasingly consider how hashtags, influencer content, and user-generated posts demonstrate actual marketplace conditions rather than relying solely on hypothetical survey questions.
Potential legislative updates could strengthen design protection in fashion, extend trademark rights to broader aesthetic elements, or create new categories of intellectual property for emerging technologies. International harmonization efforts aim to create consistent enforcement mechanisms across borders as dupe culture operates globally through e-commerce platforms.
Technology solutions offer new tools for brand protection. Blockchain authentication systems can verify product authenticity through tamper-proof digital records. AI-powered monitoring services scan vast amounts of online content to identify potential infringement faster than human reviewers. Consumer-facing apps help buyers verify authentic products through visual recognition or code scanning.
Strategic adaptation requires businesses to accept dupe culture as a permanent marketplace feature rather than a temporary problem to solve. Innovation acceleration, community building, and strategic partnerships become more valuable than purely defensive legal strategies.
The companies that thrive will be those that turn imitation into validation while building sustainable competitive advantages through elements that cannot be easily replicated: superior quality, customer relationships, brand experience, and continuous innovation.
Your Next Steps in the Dupe Economy
The Lululemon vs. Costco case represents more than one company’s fight against copycats. It’s a defining moment for how businesses must adapt their brand protection strategies to a world where social media makes duplication both easier and more profitable.
Your immediate action should focus on assessment and preparation. Audit your current trademark protection to identify gaps in coverage for distinctive product names, color schemes, or design elements. Review your most successful products to determine which features competitors might target for duplication.
Document the distinctive elements that customers associate with your brand. Collect evidence of consumer recognition through surveys, social media mentions, press coverage, and sales data. This documentation becomes crucial if you later need to prove secondary meaning for trade dress protection or demonstrate the strength of your trademark rights.
Implement monitoring systems to detect potential infringement early. Professional watch services combined with social media monitoring provide advance warning when competitors begin developing similar products or when dupe culture discovers your brand.
Consider design patent applications for your most distinctive aesthetic features, particularly if you’re launching new products with unique visual appeal. The one-year deadline from public disclosure means you cannot delay these decisions indefinitely.
Don’t wait until your products are trending on #DupeFinds to take action. The businesses that prosper in this new landscape will be those that build intelligent intellectual property protection before they need it, not after dupe culture discovers them.
In a market where consumers proudly buy lookalikes, your legal protection must be stronger than ever. The question isn’t whether dupe culture will find your products. The question is whether you’ll be ready when it does.
If you need help navigating the trademark process, contact my office today. I’ve filed over 6,000 trademark applications, and can help you protect your business.
