Lululemon Sues costco Over Alleged “Dupe” Athleisure Wear – A Deep Dive
Seattle, WA – July 3, 2025 – Lululemon, the popular athleisure brand frequently enough dubbed the “Chanel of Yoga,” has launched a legal battle against wholesale giant Costco, accusing the retailer of selling unauthorized replicas of its high-end clothing [[1]], [[2]],[[3]]. The lawsuit,filed in the Central District Court of California,centers around Costco’s Kirkland brand products – specifically,items mirroring Lululemon’s popular designs at substantially lower price points.The Core of the Dispute: brand Dilution & Consumer Confusion
Lululemon alleges that Costco is infringing on its intellectual property rights by producing and selling “dupes” – copycat versions – of its signature athletic wear. The company argues that these imitations leverage Lululemon’s established brand value, reputation, and the considerable effort invested in design and concept [[1]].
A key point of contention is Costco’s labeling of the Kirkland products. Lululemon claims the vague manufacturer attribution creates consumer confusion,leading shoppers to believe the Kirkland items are produced by,or affiliated with,Lululemon itself [[1]].
Price Disparity: A Stark Contrast
The price difference between Lululemon’s originals and Costco’s Kirkland versions is substantial. For example, Lululemon’s “Scuba Hoodie” retails for $118, while Costco’s comparable Danskin Half House hoodie is priced at just $8 (approximately 11,000 won) [[1]]. Lululemon asserts that this extends to other popular items like Define Jackets and ABC pants.
A Pattern of Protecting Intellectual Property
This isn’t Lululemon’s first foray into legal action to protect its designs. In 2021, the company successfully sued Peloton, leading to the bicycle manufacturer agreeing to halt production of a design deemed infringing [[1]]. This demonstrates a clear strategy of aggressively defending its intellectual property.
The Broader Implications: “Dupe” Culture Under Scrutiny
This lawsuit arrives amidst a booming “dupe” economy, fueled by social media trends. The case could signal a growing pushback from original creators seeking to
