Lululemon vs. Costco: The Trade Dress Showdown
On June 27, 2025, Lululemon Athletica filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Costco Wholesale. The claim targets Costco’s private-label Kirkland products and partner brands (Danskin, Jockey, Spyder, Hi‑Tec), alleging these items are knockoff versions of Lululemon’s signature apparel, and consumers are being misled.
What’s Alleged
Lululemon highlights six items it says infringe on its trade dress and design patents:
Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants, among others
Featured functionality appears nearly identical: crotch gussets, curved pockets with decorative rivets, rear panels—elements Lululemon says are part of its recognizable trade dress.
They claim Costco’s pricing strategy, selling these at $20–$22 versus Lululemon’s $118–$128—intentionally targets consumers wanting high-end design at rock-bottom prices
Lululemon is seeking monetary damages and a permanent injunction to halt sales of the disputed items.
Legal Basis: Trade Dress & Consumer Confusion
Trade Dress & Design Patents: Lululemon asserts that Costco’s dupe items mimic both trade dress (the product’s overall look and feel) and design patents.
Consumer Confusion Risk: In a social media age, hashtags like #LululemonDupes and coverage by outlets like The Washington Post show that dupes are gaining traction online—Lululemon uses this as evidence of potential confusion.
Functional vs. Non‑Functional Elements: Critics—designers and trademark law experts—point out that elements like gussets or pocket shapes serve functional purposes and aren’t inherently protectable. They argue that enforcing such elements as trade dress could chill competition in the apparel industry.
Industry Voices
Apparel designer Joe Ng from Shift Fashion Group said Lululemon’s design is higher quality, but functional design features are everywhere in the market. He weighed in in favor of Costco, saying the alleged dupes don’t truly mimic the product in a way that would trick buyers.
A trademark expert quoted by Forbes/Economic Times emphasized that to win, Lululemon must show real consumer confusion, not just design similarity, since consumers looking for premium vs. budget apparel typically understand what they’re buying.
For Trademark Lawyers: Key Takeaways
Trade Dress Claims Use Broadly:
Lululemon’s suit illustrates a bold interpretation, claiming protection over structural and decorative apparel features.
Functional Designs Are Hard to Trademark:
Courts will closely scrutinize whether design elements are ornamental or serve a functional purpose.
Proof of Confusion Is Crucial:
Media references and influencer posts may help Lululemon’s case, but they must demonstrate actual consumer confusion.
Precedent Risk:
If Lululemon wins, it could reshape what apparel design elements are considered protectable.
Outlook and What to Watch
Upcoming Motions: Costco will likely file motions to dismiss, arguing that the contested elements are functional and not protectable as trade dress.
Evidence of Confusion: Lululemon may rely on social media trends, hashtags, and consumer surveys to strengthen its case.
Potential Resolution: Watch for settlement possibilities similar to Lululemon’s earlier case with Peloton in 2021, where trade dress claims evolved into collaboration.
Summary
Lululemon’s suit marks a strategic defense of its brand’s visual identity in an era awash with dupes and private-label alternatives. The legal fight hinges on two pivotal issues: whether the contested design features can be protected as trade dress, and whether consumers are genuinely being misled. For trademark practitioners, this is a high-stakes test of how far trade dress protection can extend into functional apparel design. If you would like to know more about how to get a trademark for your business, click here to schedule a free consolation.
Stay tuned as this case progresses, its outcome could recalibrate IP enforcement across the fashion industry.