The Legal Fight Against Dupe Culture

Over the past few years, “Dupe Culture” has become a buzzword both on social media and in the courtroom.

The idea is fairly straightforward. Rather than paying full price for a designer item, you can find duplicates for a fraction of the price. Sometimes, these duplicates are deliberate knockoffs that intentionally mimic the original design. Other times, they are simply items that look similar to the original or have a similar style or feel.

Either way, people have been finding dupes of designer clothing, jewelry, skincare products, fragrances, and more. 

To be clear, such duplicates have been around for centuries. For as long as there have been desirable brands, there have been others making knockoffs for a lower price.

But, for most of the history, this has been something of a dirty secret. People who purchased the imitations were either unaware they had done so or were trying to keep it a secret from others. With dupe culture, buyers were proud to the point of bragging about their purchases, highlighting how similar their purchases were to the original and how much money they had saved.

Retailers, predictably, were eager to jump on this trend. However, when they did so, they were met with a wave of legal challenges and lawsuits.

Though the fight is still ongoing, from what we have seen so far, it’s clear that dupe culture is on the back foot, both in terms of relevancy and in terms of the law.

No case illustrates this better than Lululemon Athletica v. Costco.

The Lululemon Battle

In late June 2025, Lululemon filed a lawsuit against the retailer Costco. According to the lawsuit, Costco had created several clothing items, including pants, hoodies, and jackets, that infringed on their intellectual property.

According to the lawsuit, that intellectual property included trademarks, trade dress, and design patents.  The lawsuit alleged that Costco sold the designs under its in-house Kirkland Signature Brand. 

Though the allegations varied from product to product, some of the “highlights” included:

• A half-zip hoodie that featured “Scuba”, a name trademarked by Lululemon, in the brand name. 
• Products using the color “Tidewater Teal”, a color name that had been exclusively used by Lululemon.
• Ornamental lines that mimicked Lululemon products.
• Concerns that, since Costco does work with other high-end brands without alerting customers, others may think that the products were actually manufactured by Lululemon.
• News articles featuring headlines such as “Is That Hoodie a Lululemon or a Costco Dupe? No One Has to Know But You.”

In short, there wasn’t much dispute that Costco had mimicked Lululemon products and sold them at a considerably lower price. As such, the two sides began working toward a settlement. So far, they have approached this item by item and, as of this writing, only one jacket remains.

But regardless of how that last item plays out, the mere fact that Lululemon was able to push Costco to the negotiating table is a major victory for the brand. Many felt the case was going to be a difficult one for Lululemon to win, not just because of the types of intellectual property involved, but also some of the specific allegations that Lululemon had made.

What seemed initially to be an uphill battle for Lululemon turned into (largely) a quick settlement. That alone is enough to send shockwaves through the industry.

What Changed?

To be clear, this isn’t the only legal battle in this space. As this article by The Global Legal Post points out, there have been a slew of cases involving a variety of duped items. This includes jewelry, skincare products, other types of clothing, and even smartwatches.

Counterfeit products have always been an issue for major brands. Companies have been in a never-ending battle to protect their brand, a battle that has only accelerated due to the rise of fast fashion. 

However, for the most part, that battle has been focused on protecting customers as much as the brand. The concern was that customers would be duped into buying a product thinking it was an original when, in fact, it was an imitation.

But, with the rise of dupe culture, that’s no longer the case. Here, the customer knows, or at least should know, that they’re buying a dupe. For them, that’s the entire point. They don’t want to buy the original, they want to buy something that is as close to it as possible for as little money as possible.

As such, Lululemon argued that the issue wasn’t just that Costco was deceiving or confusing customers, but that there was confusion after the sale. They argued that the products were so similar that the public would be confused as to whether they were original and that was its own trade dress violation.

This represents a pretty significant expansion in this space. Companies aren’t just looking to protect their potential customers, they are looking to prevent dilution of their brand even after the sale. 

While I don’t think these brands believe that they can stop imitations and dupes entirely, this is a significant warning to large retailers. These companies are prepared to fight not just to prevent customer confusion, but also to protect their brand post-sale. 

All of the major retailers would be wise to take note.

Bottom Line

There’s a significant problem here that I don’t think the high-end brands can litigate their way out of. A lot of customers are simply rejecting the idea of buying expensive brands. 

This shouldn’t be a surprise. The 2012 Macklemore song “ Thrift Shop” was, in many ways, a representation of “Dupe Culture” from over a decade ago. For many, not buying expensive brands is more of a flex than buying them. Flashing expensive brands is often seen as tacky or gaudy more than a legitimate status symbol.

While there’s no doubt that Lululemon scored a major victory in this case, the headwinds that created this conflict are still present. 

To be clear, Lululemon is just one of these brands. There are countless others facing similar issues. But if owning luxury items is no longer seen as trendy or as a status symbol, they will have a hard time convincing customers, especially less wealthy ones, to buy their products.

Especially when many feel they can get “just as good” or “good enough” for a tiny fraction of the price.