When Vancouver-based Lululemon Athletica received federal trademark registration for “Lululemon Dupe” on October 21, 2025, the athleisure giant flipped conventional brand protection on its head. Instead of fighting the term that has plagued premium brands across social media, Lululemon claimed ownership of it. The registration, granted just ten months after the company filed its application in December 2024, gives Lululemon exclusive commercial rights to a phrase that influencers and competitors have used thousands of times to market lookalike products. This creative enforcement strategy arrives months after Lululemon’s June 2025 trade dress infringement lawsuit against Costco, suggesting a multi-pronged approach to controlling the dupe narrative rather than simply fighting copycats in court.
The Registration Strategy Behind “Lululemon Dupe”
The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Lululemon’s registration on October 21, 2025, covering “Lululemon Dupe” under International Class 35. That classification choice reveals the strategy. Class 25 protects clothing and accessories. Class 35 covers advertising and business services.
Class 35 targets how the phrase appears in marketing, retail services, and advertising contexts. Lululemon can now control commercial use of “Lululemon Dupe” in promotional materials, online advertising, and retail store signage. The registration doesn’t stop someone from making lookalike products. It stops them from marketing those products using Lululemon’s registered phrase. (You can see my writeup on the other Lululemon trademarks here.)
This distinction matters because enforcement power sits where the money flows in dupe culture. The products themselves might avoid legal challenges, but marketing them requires visibility. Search engines, social media platforms, affiliate networks, and e-commerce listings all depend on keywords and phrases. By controlling “Lululemon Dupe” as a marketing term, Lululemon positions itself at the chokepoint where dupes need exposure to generate sales.
The application originated on December 4, 2024, initially filed on an intent-to-use basis. Lululemon later amended to proceed under Section 44(e), basing registration on a prior Benelux filing that covered Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This international-first approach let Lululemon test the strategy abroad before committing to U.S. registration. The Section 44(e) amendment also meant no specimen of actual use appeared in the USPTO file, leaving Lululemon’s deployment plans ambiguous.
The Enforcement Mechanics of Marketing Control
Owning the “Lululemon Dupe” trademark gives Lululemon enforcement tools that differ from traditional product trademarks. When I prepare trademark enforcement strategies, the distinction between product marks and service marks creates different legal leverage points.
The registration targets commercial advertising uses. Influencers who create sponsored content or affiliate marketing posts using “Lululemon Dupe” could receive cease-and-desist letters. The legal line separates editorial content from commercial speech. A consumer posting about finding dupes remains protected, but someone earning revenue through sponsored posts or affiliate commissions crosses into commercial activity. Retailers using the phrase in backend metadata, SEO keywords, or product categorization systems would face similar exposure.
The enforcement analysis differs from traditional likelihood of confusion cases. When preparing likelihood of confusion analyses, courts examine whether consumers might believe two products come from the same source. Here, Lululemon owns both the brand name and the phrase, so enforcement centers on unauthorized commercial use rather than proving consumer confusion.
The registration carries limitations. Trademark law requires actual use. Non-use for three consecutive years creates a presumption of abandonment, forcing Lululemon to incorporate the phrase into their own marketing rather than simply warehousing the registration. Also, the trademark doesn’t stop retailers from selling lookalike products or competing on price. It only controls using this specific phrase for commercial marketing purposes.
Practical enforcement prioritizes high-impact targets. A major retailer using “Lululemon Dupe” in national advertising campaigns presents clearer infringement and greater commercial harm than individual social media posts. The analysis weighs whether enforcement action will meaningfully protect brand value against the costs of pursuing violations. This selective approach focuses resources on violations that either generate significant revenue or establish precedents for broader enforcement.
The Economics Behind Dupe Culture in Athleisure
Lululemon’s trademark registration strategy emerges from market forces that have transformed affordable alternatives into mainstream consumer movements. Social media platforms turned product comparison into entertainment content. TikTok’s #dupe hashtag hosts over 370,000 posts featuring side-by-side analyses of premium products and affordable alternatives. Influencers build entire business models around showcasing dupes, earning revenue through affiliate commissions and sponsored content. A single viral video comparing a $118 Lululemon hoodie to a $20 Costco alternative can reach millions of viewers within days.
The consumer psychology driving dupe culture differs fundamentally from counterfeiting. Counterfeit goods deceive buyers into believing they’re purchasing authentic products. Dupe culture operates on transparency. Consumers knowingly purchase lookalikes, celebrating the financial savings while achieving similar aesthetics. Cost-of-living pressures accelerated this trend, making a $20 hoodie that resembles a $118 design seem like smart shopping rather than cheap imitation. Social media removes any stigma by framing dupe purchases as savvy consumer behavior rather than settling for less.
The company’s lawsuit against Costco that preceded this trademark strategy revealed the scale of the challenge. The June 27, 2025 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California targeted specific products where Lululemon’s $118 Scuba hoodies competed with $20 Danskin pullovers, $128 Define jackets faced similar Spyder designs, and $128 ABC pants sat alongside comparable Jockey and Kirkland Signature styles. The price differential reflects manufacturing realities, but it also demonstrates why dupe culture threatens premium brands’ business models.
The lawsuit focused on trade dress infringement and design patent violations. Lululemon argued that specific design elements like curved hemlines, hood construction, and seamline placement created distinctive appearances consumers associate with their brand. This approach differs from counterfeiting cases. Dupes operate in murkier legal territory by copying overall look and feel without reproducing actual trademarks, making litigation expensive and outcomes uncertain. Even successful cases produce limited relief when new dupes appear faster than courts can resolve disputes.
Aritzia’s response signals a broader industry shift. The Canadian athletic wear company filed for “Aritzia Dupe” in March 2025, just three months after Lululemon’s December filing. This evolution from pure litigation toward creative trademark strategies reflects pragmatic thinking. Lawsuits against major retailers consume significant resources while addressing only one source of dupes. Social media channels spread dupe recommendations through thousands of individual posts that traditional enforcement cannot efficiently address. By owning the phrase itself, brands shape the conversation rather than chase individual copycats. The trademark registration becomes a tool for controlling the narrative around dupes rather than eliminating them entirely.
Protecting Your Brand Before Competitors Move First
The Lululemon registration demonstrates why proactive trademark protection matters, particularly for phrases that emerge around your brand. When working with trademark applications, timing determines whether you secure rights or watch competitors claim valuable terminology first.
A professional trademark search examines federal and state databases, common law uses, and internet presence before filing. The search methodology includes reviewing the USPTO’s federal trademark database for registered and pending marks, checking all 50 state trademark registrations for regional conflicts, investigating common law uses through business directories and trade publications, and analyzing domain registrations and social media handles that might establish prior rights.
The methodology matters because generic terms and purely descriptive phrases cannot receive trademark protection. A clearance search identifies whether proposed phrases have already become generic through widespread use or remain available for exclusive claiming. Lululemon’s success with “Lululemon Dupe” depended partly on filing before the phrase became so common it lost distinctive character. The search also reveals potential opposition from existing rights holders whose marks might conflict with your proposed filing.
The timeline from Lululemon’s December 2024 filing to Aritzia’s March 2025 application shows how quickly competitors respond. Three months separated the applications, suggesting active monitoring of competitor trademark strategies. This compressed timeline demonstrates why businesses cannot delay protection decisions while waiting to see whether phrases gain traction. Since trademark registration can take up to 18 months or longer, securing priority dates early becomes critical in competitive industries.
Strategic filing decisions shape protection effectiveness. Lululemon’s international approach secured Benelux registration before pursuing U.S. rights, allowing Section 44(e) procedures while establishing rights against overseas manufacturers. The Class 35 selection targeted marketing ecosystems rather than products themselves, recognizing that controlling how people advertise dupes might prove more effective than preventing production. These choices reflect strategic thinking about where trademark protection creates the most business value.
When conducting trademark searches, the methodology emphasizes thoroughness over speed. Rushing to file without adequate clearance creates risks of opposition proceedings, cancellation actions, or infringement claims from prior rights holders. The investment in proper searching typically costs far less than defending against challenges to improperly filed applications. The analysis also examines whether proposed marks strengthen your overall intellectual property portfolio, support business objectives for the next five to ten years, and create enforcement leverage against specific competitive threats you face in the marketplace.
Don’t Wait Until Your Brand Name Becomes Someone Else’s Marketing Tool
Every day without trademark protection leaves your brand vulnerable. While Lululemon can now send cease-and-desist letters to those using “Lululemon Dupe” in marketing, countless business owners discover too late that phrases associated with their products have been registered by competitors or resellers. The cost of opposing someone else’s trademark registration far exceeds the investment in proactive protection.
My trademark practice provides thorough searches of federal and state databases, common law uses, and internet presence to identify conflicts before filing. I personally prepare and file applications with the USPTO, monitor your application through registration, and provide strategic guidance on class selection and filing basis. The service includes unlimited telephone consultations.
Don’t wait for competitors to register phrases that define your brand. Contact my office today for a consultation about protecting your business names, product lines, marketing slogans, and brand identity. The trademark registration process typically takes 12-18 months, making early filing critical to securing your rights before others move first.
