Lululemon, a popular Canadian athletic wear brand, has filed a lawsuit against Costco, a major American retailer, in a California federal court on June 27, 2025. The lawsuit claims that Costco is selling “knockoff” versions of Lululemon’s well-known products, such as sweatshirts, jackets, and pants, which copy Lululemon’s designs without permission. This legal battle has sparked interest as it highlights issues of intellectual property, brand reputation, and the growing trend of “dupe culture” in fashion.
What is the Lawsuit About?
Lululemon accuses Costco of selling clothing that imitates its popular products, including the “Scuba” hoodies, “Define” jackets, and “ABC” pants. The 49-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, says these items are sold under Costco’s private label, Kirkland, as well as by other brands like Danskin, Jockey, and Spyder. Lululemon claims that Costco’s products are so similar to its own that they could confuse customers into thinking they are authentic Lululemon items or that the two brands are connected.
The lawsuit also points out that Costco uses terms like “Scuba” and “Tidewater Teal,” which Lululemon says are its trademarks. Lululemon argues that this not only violates its intellectual property rights but also harms its brand reputation, as it has built its name on high-quality, innovative designs. The company is seeking damages, a full accounting of Costco’s profits from these products, and an order to stop Costco from selling the alleged knockoffs.
Background of the Dispute
This is not the first time Costco has faced accusations of selling “dupes” of Lululemon products. In November 2024, Lululemon sent Costco a cease-and-desist letter, asking them to stop selling certain items. While Costco removed some products, Lululemon claims the retailer continued to sell other lookalike items, leading to this lawsuit.
The rise of “dupe culture,” where consumers seek cheaper versions of high-end products, has fueled this conflict. Many shoppers turn to retailers like Costco for affordable alternatives to expensive brands like Lululemon. However, Lululemon argues that Costco’s actions go beyond inspiration and cross into copying, which could deceive customers and damage its brand identity.
Why is This Important?
Lululemon is known for its premium athletic wear, with products like the ABC pants and Scuba hoodies being highly popular. The company invests heavily in design, materials, and marketing to maintain its reputation for quality and exclusivity. Costco’s alleged knockoffs, sold at lower prices, could undermine Lululemon’s market position and confuse consumers about the authenticity of the products they buy.
This lawsuit also raises broader questions about how big-box retailers like Costco compete with premium brands. Costco’s private-label sales, including its Kirkland brand, make up a significant part of its revenue, and clothing is a growing category. Meanwhile, Lululemon is fiercely protective of its designs, as they are central to its brand identity.
Costco’s Response
As of now, Costco has not publicly responded to the lawsuit or requests for comment from news outlets. The retailer has yet to file a formal response in court, so its side of the story is not fully known.
What Happens Next?
The lawsuit is in its early stages, and it could take months or even years to resolve. Lululemon is asking the court to stop Costco from selling the alleged knockoffs and to compensate for any lost profits. The case could set an important precedent for how intellectual property is protected in the fashion industry, especially as dupe culture continues to grow.
The legal battle between Lululemon and Costco highlights the tension between affordability and authenticity in the fashion world. Lululemon is fighting to protect its brand and intellectual property, while Costco’s affordable alternatives appeal to budget-conscious shoppers. As this case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how it impacts both companies and the broader retail landscape. For now, Lululemon’s lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting original designs in a competitive market.
