Why Dupe Lawsuits Like LuluLemon's Are Rare—And Hard To Win
Luxury athletic wear brand Lululemon has sued Costco in federal court and accused the big box store of selling products that purposefully rip off some its most popular items for a fraction of the price—the latest lawsuit to come out of an increasingly prevalent 'dupe culture' that has left big-name companies with little recourse against brands that produce copycat products for less.
A customer enters a Lululemon store in Corte Madera, California. Getty Images
Key Facts
In a lawsuit filed in California, Lululemon accused Costco of selling and, in one case, manufacturing knockoffs of its Scuba sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants.
The complaint alleged trade dress infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, patent infringement and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, and asks that Lululemon be compensated for the lost profits and "significant harm" done to its brands and reputation.
Costco, which did not respond to request for comment from Forbes on Tuesday, could be forced to pay up if Lululemon prevails, but winning a trademark infringement lawsuit over dupe products is a tall order.
Dozens of successful brands have sued over the increasing production of dupes in the last several years, but proving a product was copied isn't enough to win—the original producer must also show that the copycat product could actually 'dupe' customers into believing the knockoffs are the real thing.
The onus of proving the copycat product actually confused customers and impacted the original manufacturer's business falls on the originating company, New York trademark lawyer Karl Zielaznick told Forbes, and it's very hard to prove: 'Customers often know that they aren't buying a $5,000 watch for $100… They know it's a different, dupe product,' he said.
Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.
Key Background
The prevalence of 'dupe culture' has skyrocketed in the last decade, largely thanks to TikTok, as customers search for and buy products that are cheaper, almost identical versions of high-end items. As opposed to generations before who "may have shopped for knockoffs on the sly," Jennifer Baker of creator management platform Grin told The Guardian, young people are now happy to buy knockoff products and share their finds with the world. TikTok videos with #dupe hashtag have racked up more than 6 billion views, and shoppers can easily find counterfeits for everything from a $600 hair tool to a $40 face wash. Because shoppers are happily and knowingly buying the fake products, nobody is actually being duped into thinking knock-offs are the real thing, Zielaznick explained, which makes it much harder to prove brand confusion.
Surprising Fact
In December, the e.l.f. Cosmetics company admitted in federal court that it created a mascara product called the Lash 'N Roll specifically meant to mimic the Hook N' Roll brush of Benefit Cosmetics' Roller Lash mascara, which has produced $278 million in revenue from U.S. sales since 2015. E.l.f released its product in 2022, and the two mascaras are packaged and marked similarly. Despite the admission and similarities, a judge ruled that the e.l.f. product did not infringe on the trademark or trade dress of Benefit Cosmetics because it was very unlikely customers would ever actually confuse the two products. To win, Benefit would have had to prove e.l.f. had managed to actually dupe buyers, which the company failed to do.
Crucial Quote
'It's not enough to have someone admit they looked at or were inspired by your product,' Zielaznick said. 'You have to be able to prove in some other way that this is harming you. There has to be a true attempt by the dupe manufacturer to deceive, and it's very hard to prove that that intent exists.'
What To Watch For
The verdict in pending trademark lawsuits. Snack giant Mondelez International has sued grocery chain Aldi over claims the store is mimicking the packaging of cookies like Oreo, Chips Ahoy! and Nutter Butter with the intention of confusing customers. Williams-Sonoma is suing a website called Dupe.com, which allows shoppers to search for products that look eerily similar to something they liked online, and American Eagle is suing Amazon over claims it ripped off branding from the Aerie clothing line to confuse online shoppers. Deckers, the parent company of Ugg, is suing Quince for alleged trademark infringement related to a copycat version of its UGG Classic Ultra Mini boots.
Further Reading
Forbes
Do Trademarks Still Matter In 2025?
Forbes
Earth, Wind & Firing Off: A Cautionary Tale Of Trademark Infringement In The Music Industry
Forbes
Nike Stole Company's Trademark, Then Tried To Bury It In Legal Bills, Court-Ordered Report Says
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Analysis shows Trump's tariffs would cost US employers $82.3 billion
WASHINGTON (AP) — An analysis finds that a critical group of U.S. employers would face a direct cost of $82.3 billion from President Donald Trump's current tariff plans, a sum that could be potentially managed through price hikes, layoffs, hiring freezes or lower profit margins. The analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute is among the first to measure the direct costs created by the import taxes on businesses with $10 million to $1 billion in revenue, a category that includes roughly a third of private-sector U.S. workers. These companies are more dependent than other businesses on imports from China, India and Thailand — and the retail and wholesale sectors would be especially vulnerable to the import taxes being levied by the Republican president. The findings show clear trade-offs from Trump's import taxes, contradicting his claims that foreign manufacturers would absorb the costs of the tariffs instead of U.S. companies that rely on imports. While the tariffs launched under Trump have yet to boost overall inflation, large companies such as Amazon, Costco, Walmart and Williams-Sonoma delayed the potential reckoning by building up their inventories before the taxes could be imposed. The analysis comes just ahead of the July 9 deadline by Trump to formally set the tariff rates on goods from dozens of countries. Trump imposed that deadline after the financial markets panicked in response to his April tariff announcements, prompting him to instead schedule a 90-day negotiating period when most imports faced a 10% baseline tariff. China, Mexico and Canada face higher rates, and there are separate 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum. Had the initial April 2 tariffs stayed in place, the companies in the JPMorganChase Institute analysis would have faced additional direct costs of $187.6 billion. Under the current rates, the $82.3 billion would be equivalent on average to $2,080 per employee, or 3.1% of the average annual payroll. Those averages include firms that don't import goods and those that do. Asked Tuesday how trade talks are faring, Trump said simply: 'Everything's going well.' The president has indicated that he will set tariff rates given the logistical challenge of negotiating with so many nations. As the 90-day period comes to a close, only the United Kingdom has signed a trade framework with the Trump administration. India and Vietnam have signaled that they're close to a trade framework. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that more inflation could surface. The investment bank Goldman Sachs said in a report that it expects companies to pass along 60% of their tariff costs onto consumers. The Atlanta Federal Reserve has used its survey of businesses' inflation expectations to say that companies could on average pass along roughly half their costs from a 10% tariff or a 25% tariff without reducing consumer demand. The JPMorganChase Institute findings suggest that the tariffs could cause some domestic manufacturers to strengthen their roles as suppliers of goods. But it noted that companies need to plan for a range of possible outcomes and that wholesalers and retailers already operate on such low profit margins that they might need to spread the tariffs costs to their customers. The outlook for tariffs remains highly uncertain. Trump had stopped negotiations with Canada, only to restart them after the country dropped its plan to tax digital services. He similarly on Monday threatened more tariffs on Japan unless it buys more rice from the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Tuesday interview that the concessions from the trade talks have impressed career officials at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies. 'People who have been at Treasury, at Commerce, at USTR for 20 years are saying that these are deals like they've never seen before,' Bessent said on Fox News Channel's 'Fox & Friends.' The treasury secretary said the Trump administration plans to discuss the contours of trade deals next week, prioritizing the tax cuts package passed on Tuesday by the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump has set a Friday deadline for passage of the multitrillion-dollar package, the costs of which the president hopes to offset with tariff revenues. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy Brookfield Asset Management While It's Below $60?
Brookfield raises funds and invests on behalf of clients in alternative assets. The company's fee-based business model is highly profitable. A strong growth outlook supports the stock's premium valuation. 10 stocks we like better than Brookfield Asset Management › Brookfield Asset Management (NYSE: BAM) has been on a bit of a tear, surging over 40% in the past year. The company, part of several subsidiaries of the sprawling Brookfield ecosystem, deals in managing investments in alternative assets. It's a relatively new stock, created by a spinoff a few years back. Investors may not yet fully appreciate the company's lucrative business model or the growth opportunities ahead. Here is what Brookfield offers, and why it's a fantastic buy at under $60 right now. Brookfield is one of the world's largest alternative investment companies, with over $1 trillion in assets under management (AUM). Brookfield Corporation is the parent company and owns stakes in numerous private and publicly traded subsidiaries. The Brookfield Asset Management subsidiary plays a key role in this broader ecosystem. It creates private investment funds and other financial products and services that it sells to clients to raise capital. Then, the company invests that money on its clients' behalf into Brookfield (and elsewhere) assets, such as real estate, energy, infrastructure, private equity, and credit. The best aspect of Brookfield Asset Management is that it doesn't directly operate the assets it invests in; it only manages the equity. For example, if the company buys a power plant, it's not responsible for its day-to-day operations or the expenses associated with that. However, it could sell the plant for a profit if its value increases. Therefore, Brookfield Asset Management is a very asset-light and lucrative business. The fee revenue it generates is almost entirely profit. You could think of Brookfield Asset Management as a hedge fund that invests money in these alternative assets, rather than stocks. Growing, dividend-paying stocks can be lucrative investments when you buy and hold them for many years. Brookfield Asset Management hasn't been around long enough to have established a reputation, but the stock looks like a dividend monster in the making. It currently yields nearly 3.2% at its current share price. Because it has virtually zero physical assets, the company pays out almost all the fee-based revenue it generates as dividends. Brookfield Asset Management primarily grows by expanding its AUM, thereby increasing fee-based revenue. It does that by attracting new clients and capital. Management believes that the global asset opportunity for alternative investments will increase from $25 trillion today to over $60 trillion by 2032. Brookfield, with $1 trillion under management, is a prominent player, so this is a fragmented industry. The company can grow by capturing market share, while the size of the pie expands simultaneously. Currently, Brookfield Asset Management projects that it will increase its fee-based revenue sufficiently to raise the dividend at a 15% annualized rate through 2029. That's impressive for a stock with a starting yield of 3.2%. At first glance, Brookfield Asset Management looks pretty expensive at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 40. But consider the following. The company anticipates growing its profits at a mid-teens growth rate over the next four to five years. That's not a bad P/E for such high growth. Additionally, Brookfield Asset Management is a highly profitable, asset-light business, which also often supports a higher valuation. All said, Brookfield Asset Management isn't dirt cheap by any means, but it's still a fair valuation for such an excellent company and emerging dividend growth star. Investors, especially those looking to hold the stock for the long term, can confidently buy the stock under $60 and feel good about what they're getting. Before you buy stock in Brookfield Asset Management, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Brookfield Asset Management wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $722,181!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $968,402!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,069% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 177% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 30, 2025 Justin Pope has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Brookfield and Brookfield Corporation. The Motley Fool recommends Brookfield Asset Management. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy Brookfield Asset Management While It's Below $60? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
19 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Apple, Alphabet and Tesla are Holding the S&P 500 Rally Back
Investors may be tempted to imagine how much higher the S&P 500 Index would be if three of its most influential stocks weren't lagging behind. Apple Inc., the third-most-valuable company in the S&P 500, has seen its shares drop 17% this year amid tariff concerns and problems developing artificial intelligence services. Alphabet Inc., the $2.1 trillion internet advertising giant, is down 7% amid fears that AI chatbots will eat into its lucrative Google search business. Meanwhile, Tesla Inc. is down 26% amid slumping electric vehicle sales.
