Lululemon has successfully obtained a trademark for the term “Lululemon dupe” in the United States, as revealed by documents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark was granted on October 21, following the company’s initial application in December 2024. This trademark covers activities such as advertising, marketing, and retail services, both online and in physical stores, exclusively allowing Lululemon to utilize the phrase for product promotion.
Notably, there has been no similar trademark registration found in the Canadian Trademarks Database as of the most recent search. This strategic trademark acquisition by Lululemon serves as a proactive measure to safeguard its brand from imitations, commonly referred to as “dupes.” Susan Scafidi, the founder of the Fashion Law Institute and a law professor at Fordham University School of Law, views this move as a creative method for brand protection.
Unlike counterfeit or knock-off products, dupes are items resembling popular brand names but sold at lower prices. Scafidi notes that the term “dupe” lacks the negative associations of counterfeit goods, prompting concerns among brands about potential market share erosion. With Lululemon now holding the exclusive rights to the “Lululemon dupe” phrase, individuals or entities engaging in commercial activities, like influencers endorsing similar products, may face legal consequences in the future for using the term.
Ashlee Froese, a fashion and branding lawyer based in Toronto, highlights that sellers of Lululemon lookalike items may face repercussions if they incorporate the phrase in hidden data like metadata, potentially leading to legal issues. Trademark ownership, as explained by Daniel Tsai, a business and law professor, can compel competitors to cease product sales by merely possessing the trademark.
Furthermore, in line with U.S. trademark regulations, Lululemon will need to actively use the trademark to maintain its validity. Scafidi speculates that the company might launch campaigns or events centered around the concept of dupes to fulfill this requirement. Despite requests for comments from CBC, Lululemon did not respond by the time of publication.
In the realm of brand protection, Lululemon has been recognized for its innovative strategies, including utilizing design patents to safeguard specific aspects of its products. The company previously organized a “dupe swap” event in Los Angeles, encouraging customers who had purchased knock-offs of its Align pants to exchange them for authentic Lululemon pieces, emphasizing the original brand.
Additionally, Lululemon’s legal battles against alleged imitations, such as the lawsuit against Costco for selling purported duplicates of its popular apparel items, demonstrate its commitment to preserving its brand integrity. Froese suggests that other companies may follow suit by trademarking their brand names along with the term “dupe” to combat imitation products.
As the business landscape continues to evolve, brands like Aritzia are exploring new avenues for protecting their intellectual property, given the inevitability of copycat products. In this ongoing challenge to safeguard brand authenticity, the pursuit of innovative strategies remains crucial to stay ahead in the intellectual property protection game.
