Lululemon sues Costco accusing it of selling brand knockoffs
Knockoffs or dupes, as they have become more commonly known, have been increasingly popular with social media influencers making try-on videos of cheaper versions of their favorite apparel brands.
Lululemon claimed in its lawsuit filed Friday that some companies have created 'knockoffs' or 'dupes' of its products.
'There is even a hashtag 'LululemonDupes' on social media platforms such as TikTok that social media influencers use when promoting these copycat products,' the company said.
Lululemon claimed these dupes, including the ones Costco is selling, infringe on the company's intellectual property rights and damage its 'hard-earned' reputation.
The company specifically names its Scuba hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants in the lawsuit. The Scuba hoodie retails for around $118, while the Define jacket and ABC pants cost about $128 each.
Lululemon listed the dupes that Costco sold, including the Spyder Women's Yoga Jacket, which, according to the Costco website, retails for about $22.
When The Independent looked up other items Lululemon listed, the Hi-Tec Men's Scuba Full Zip and the Kirkland 5 Pocket Performance Pant, on Costco's website, it read, 'Page Not Found!'
Lululemon said retailers such as Costco want to sell the dupes 'to confuse consumers at the point-of-sale and/or observers post-sale into believing that the 'dupes' are Plaintiffs' authentic products when they are not.'
In a statement shared with multiple outlets, Lululemon said: 'As an innovation-led company that invests significantly in the research, development and design of our products, we take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Elon Musk's ‘America' party could focus on a few pivotal congressional seats
The new US political party that Elon Musk has boasted about bankrolling could initially focus on a handful of attainable House and Senate seats while striving to be the decisive vote on major issues amid the thin margins in Congress. Tesla and SpaceX's multibillionaire CEO mused about that approach on Friday in a post on X, the social media platform he owns, as he continued feuding with Donald Trump over the spending bill that the president has signed into law. On Saturday, without immediately elaborating, the former Trump adviser announced on X that he had created the so-called America party. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' wrote Musk, who is the world's richest person and oversaw brutal cuts to the federal government after Trump's second presidency began in January. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring they serve the true will of the people.' Musk did not specify any seats he may be eyeing. In another post on Friday, when the US celebrated the 249th anniversary of its declaration of independence from the UK, Musk published a poll asking his X followers whether he should advance on his previously stated idea of creating the America party to contend against both Republicans and Democrats. More than 65% of about 1.25m responses indicated 'yes' as of Saturday morning. 'Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!' Musk also wrote in text accompanying the poll, which he promoted several times throughout Friday. Musk on Saturday then posted on X: 'Today, the America party is formed to give you back your freedom.' He also wrote: 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party, and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.' One of the replies to Musk's announcement that he reposted showed a picture of a two-headed snake near the word 'uniparty' as well as the logos of the Democratic and Republican parties. 'End the Uniparty,' the reply said. Musk in turn responded to the reply with: 'Yes.' He also suggested the party would run during the 2026 midterms. New political parties do not have to formally register with the Federal Election Commission 'until they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election'. Musk's posts on Friday and Saturday came after he spent $277m of his fortune supporting Trump's victorious 2024 presidential campaign. The Republican president rewarded Musk by appointing him to lead the unofficial 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, which abruptly and chaotically slashed various government jobs and programs while claiming it saved $190bn. But Doge's actions may also have cost taxpayers $135bn, according to an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan non-profit dedicated to studying the federal workforce. Musk left Doge at the end of May and more recently became incensed at Trump's support for a budget bill that would increase the US debt by $3.3tn. He threatened to financially support primary challenges against every member of Congress who supported Trump's spending bill – along with promising to 'form the America Party' if it passed. The House voted 218 to 214 in favor of the spending bill, with just two Republicans joining every Democrat in the chamber in unsuccessfully opposing it. In the Senate, JD Vance broke a 50-50 deadlock in favor of the bill, which Trump signed on Friday hours after Musk posted his America party-related poll. The Trump spending bill's voting breakdown illustrated how narrowly the winning side in Congress carries some of the most controversial matters. Trump has warned Musk – a native of South Africa and naturalized US citizen since 2002 – that directly opposing his agenda would be personally costly. The president, who has pursued mass deportations of immigrants recently, publicly discussed deporting Musk from the US as well as cutting government contracts for some of his companies. 'Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head to South Africa,' Trump posted on his own social media platform, Truth Social. The president also told a group of reporters in Florida: 'We might have to put Doge on Elon. Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible.'
BBC News
43 minutes ago
- BBC News
US deports eight men to South Sudan after legal battle
The US has deported eight people to South Sudan following a legal battle that saw them diverted to Djibouti for several men - convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault and robbery - had either completed or were near the end of their prison sentences. Only one of the eight is from South Sudan. The rest are nationals of Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Mexico. US officials said most of their home countries had refused to accept Trump administration is working to expand its deportations to third countries. It has deported people to El Salvador and Costa Rica. Rwanda has confirmed discussions and Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini and Moldova have been named in media reports as potential McLaughlin from the department of homeland security called the South Sudan deportation a victory over "activist judges". A photo provided by homeland security to CBS News, the BBC's US partner, showed the men shackled by both hands and feet on the did not say whether the South Sudanese government had detained them or what their fate would be. The country remains unstable and is on the brink of civil war, with the US State Department warning against travel because of "crime, kidnapping and armed conflict".The eight had initially been flown out of the US in May, but their plane was diverted to Djibouti after US district judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts blocked the deportation. He had ruled that migrants being deported to third countries must be given notice and a chance to speak with an asylum last week, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and overturned Murphy's ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court confirmed that Murphy could no longer require due process hearings, allowing the deportations to then asked another judge to intervene but he ultimately ruled that only Judge Murphy had jurisdiction. Judge Murphy then said he had no authority to stop the removals due to the Supreme Court's "binding" this year, secretary of state Marco Rubio revoked all visas for South Sudanese passport holders, citing the country's past refusal to accept deported nationals.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
So big, so beautiful: Fox News ignores the critics and champions Trump's bill
Donald Trump's mega-bill has been widely criticized in the press. News outlets and Democrats have warned that millions of people could be stripped of their health coverage through cuts to Medicaid, that cuts to food programs would see children go hungry, and that the legislation would cause the deficit to balloon. Fox News sees it differently. 'This legislation is packed with massive, huge, important wins for you, the American people,' Sean Hannity told viewers on Monday, as US senators debated the bill in Washington. 'Here's what the bill doesn't do. It does not decrease Medicaid, Medicare, Snap or social security benefits,' Hannity continued, a claim that completely contradicted the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the bill will cut Medicaid across the US by 7.6 million to 10.3 million people. Hannity had more. 'The big, beautiful bill also does not increase the deficit. Instead, the deficit will go down around a little shy of $2tn – that's to begin with, according to estimates,' he said. 'Because guess what? That's what happens when you cut taxes. It stimulates the economy, creates jobs, gets people off the welfare rolls. Guess what? People are working, now they're paying taxes.' It was unclear where Hannity got his $2tn number from, because he didn't say. But the CBO says the bill would add at least $3.3tn to the national debt over the next nine years, while the tax cuts will benefit high earners more than others. Hannity held up Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 as an example of how the deficit will be reduced – a take that ignored that those tax cuts saw an increase of the deficit, and had to be reversed over the rest of Reagan's presidency. Still, Hannity was sold. 'The American people are on the verge of a level of prosperity they have never experienced before,' he said. Hannity's interpretation was starkly different from the one many Americans were seeing. Even Republican senators have been dubious about the bill's benefits, with three voting against it in the early hours of Tuesday morning, and House Republicans wavering on Wednesday. Yet, on Tuesday, Laura Ingraham largely ignored the bill – framing it only as Democrats losing a battle to 'derail' the legislation before going on a minutes-long riff about a 'slide in patriotism' in the US. She went on to offer complaints that there were 'more foreign flags waving' in America's streets and that leftwing politicians believe that 'America can only be redeemed when she's totally dismantled and then remade, with millions of new people from other countries'. Elsewhere, there were occasional, albeit small, concessions that the 'big, beautiful bill' might not quite be the masterly piece of legislation the White House would have people believe. 'It's not perfect, but it does need to pass if we want this tax cut,' Ainsley Earhardt said on Fox & Friends at the start of the week. Her co-host Brian Kilmeade at least presented some of the negative points in an interview with Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, on Tuesday, challenging him to address the claim that 'this is a tax break for the rich'. But Bessent didn't even attempt to address that, and Kilmeade was unwilling or unable to press him further. Later that day, the theme continued. Trace Gallagher pulled up data from the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center during his show, with a series of bullet points claiming that if Trump's bill failed it would lead to tax increases for families and small business owners. Gallagher left out the part of the Tax Foundation's analysis where the organization said the bill would reduce incomes by 0.6% and result in a nearly $3.6tn deficit increase, and ignored the Tax Policy Center's verdict that most of the tax cuts in the bill would go 'to the highest-income households'. His guests seemingly overlooked those bits, too, as they kept up the ruse. 'No bill is perfect,' Elizabeth Pipko, a former spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, told Gallagher, as she claimed 'the Democrats seem to have forgotten that' before accusing the mainstream media, with no irony, of not accurately representing the bill. Pipko added: 'I think it will pass, and I think it'll go down in history as again another false alarm from the legacy media, from the Democrats, and another victory for President Trump.'
