Fashion “dupes,” affordable alternatives to high-end clothing and accessories, are becoming increasingly prevalent, leading to legal challenges for some companies. Recently, Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco, accusing the retailer of selling lower-priced imitations of its popular athleisure wear. This trend is not new, but social media has amplified the culture of dupe shopping, with influencers guiding followers to knockoff versions of luxury items. For instance, while Hermès’ fuzzy slippers and Bottega Veneta’s hobo bag come with hefty price tags, budget-friendly versions are available at retailers like Target and Quince.
Lululemon has faced similar issues before, with other companies replicating its apparel and promoting them online under hashtags like “LululemonDupes.” These dupes, unlike illegal counterfeits, are generally legal as they do not feature unauthorized trademarks, though they may still venture into legal gray areas concerning copyright and trademark infringement.
The demand for dupes indicates a shift in consumer behavior, with many seeking luxury aesthetics without the associated costs. This has led to frustrations among luxury brands, such as Hermès, whose Executive Chairman expressed irritation over cheaper look-alikes of their Birkin bag. However, he acknowledged that the quality difference remains apparent to consumers.
In another instance, Benefit sued E.l.f. for trademark infringement over a mascara product, but a judge ruled in favor of E.l.f., highlighting the challenges in pursuing such cases. Lululemon’s lawsuit against Costco claims the retailer unlawfully leveraged Lululemon’s reputation and suggests that some customers might mistakenly believe Kirkland-branded products are made by Lululemon’s suppliers. The outcome of this legal battle remains to be seen, as similar past disputes have sometimes resulted in partnerships rather than prolonged litigation.
