“Dupe culture” has become a consumer movement built around affordable imitations of premium products, with influencers posting side-by-side comparisons under hashtags like #LululemonDupe, which has amassed over a billion views on TikTok.[1] Rather than simply fighting the phenomenon, Lululemon has also sought to engage with the language consumers use to describe products that imitate its offerings.

The Rise of Dupe Culture
“Dupe culture” is a consumer movement in which shoppers openly seek and promote lower-cost alternatives to premium branded products. For brand owners, the trend presents a challenge that does not always fit neatly within traditional intellectual-property enforcement frameworks. Trademark counterfeiting generally involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is “identical” or “substantially indistinguishable” from a registered trademark in connection with the same or related goods or services.[2] Counterfeit goods are typically intended to create the appearance that they originate with or are authorized by the brand owner. Likelihood-of-confusion analysis—the foundational test for trademark infringement—similarly focuses on whether consumers are likely to believe that an accused product originates with, is sponsored by, or is affiliated with the trademark owner.[3] But when a consumer searches “#LululemonDupe” on TikTok, the consumer may understand that the product is an alternative to, rather than an authentic product from, Lululemon. The buyer may well understand that the product is not authentic while leveraging the brand name to identify the product being imitated. That distinction raises questions about the possible limits of traditional trademark protection and the role of other IP rights to address imitations.

Lululemon’s Multi-Pronged IP Strategy
On June 27, 2025, Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation in the Central District of California, alleging trade dress, design patent, trademark, and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act, as well as violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act.[4] The suit targeted Costco products resembling Lululemon’s Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants, some of which were marketed as “dupes” by influencers allegedly paid by Costco.[5] The case was ultimately terminated in August 2026 on undisclosed terms, without a judicial decision addressing the merits of Lululemon’s claims. Lululemon likewise previously asserted trade dress claims against Peloton in 2021, in a dispute that ultimately ended in a confidential resolution.[6]

The Costco litigation and Lululemon’s later trademark activity, though separate developments, illustrate the range of strategies available to a brand owner confronting the rise of dupe culture. Lululemon has pursued conventional enforcement through litigation while also engaging directly with consumers’ use of “dupe” terminology.

Trademarking the “Dupe”—The LULULEMON DUPE Registration
Perhaps the most novel element of Lululemon’s recent trademark activity is its registration of “LULULEMON DUPE” as a trademark: on October 21, 2025, the USPTO issued Registration No. 7,990,938 in International Class 35 for advertising, marketing, and retail services, based on a Section 44(e) filing supported by an existing Benelux registration and without requiring a specimen demonstrating use in U.S. commerce at the time of registration.[7] Lululemon also secured a registration for “DUPE SWAP” in August 2025.[8]

The significance of these registrations is not yet clear. A trademark registration does not, by itself, establish how a brand owner intends to enforce the mark or prevent consumers from using the term—descriptively or otherwise. The approach is perhaps comparable to the practice of acquiring potentially negative domain names—a defensive play that blocks others from claiming the name but offers little affirmative value unless the registrant actually uses the mark in commerce. Commentators have suggested that the LULULEMON DUPE registration could have implications beyond conventional source identification, including for the commercial value and treatment of the “dupe” conversation, but it remains to be seen whether the registration will translate into meaningful enforcement rights or marketing value.[9]

For instance, Lululemon’s 2023 “DUPE SWAP” pop-up, where consumers exchanged knockoff Align pants for genuine products, briefly demonstrated that approach in practice.[10] At least one other brand has pursued a comparable trademark filing.[11] Whether such filings will prove valuable as an enforcement tool or marketing asset, or simply occupy defensive ground without practical benefit, will depend on how registrants integrate these marks into their commercial activities. Brand owners considering similar filings should carefully evaluate whether the strategy aligns with their actual marketing plans and enforcement objectives.

Novel Legal Questions: When “Dupe” Culture Meets the Confusion Analysis
Although the Costco litigation resolved before the court addressed the merits, the case illustrates several questions that are likely to recur as courts confront increasingly sophisticated forms and marketing of product imitation.

For product-configuration trade dress, a plaintiff generally must establish that the claimed configuration or design is non-functional and has acquired distinctiveness—that is, that consumers associate the design of products like Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants with the brand specifically.[12] Defendants may argue that design elements are functional or dictated by industry convention, and that the prevalence of similar designs in the marketplace undermines the claim that consumers perceive those features as source-identifying.[13]

Under design-patent law, infringement is assessed from the perspective of an ordinary observer, taking the prior art into account, and asks whether the accused design and patented design are substantially the same in overall visual appearance.[14] The relevant comparison therefore may be affected by the prior-art landscape, particularly where similar ornamental features appear throughout the industry.[15] Defendants may argue that similarities between the accused and patented designs are attributable to features common to the prior art or to functional or aesthetic conventions, rather than to the particular ornamental design claimed by the patent.[16]

The trademark claims present perhaps the most interesting doctrinal puzzle for future dupe-culture cases. Traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis asks whether consumers are likely to be confused about source, sponsorship, or affiliation.[17] But dupe culture complicates this framework: social-media posts calling a product a “Lululemon dupe” may simultaneously reinforce recognition of the brand (evidence of distinctiveness) while undermining confusion claims because consumers may knowingly seek an alternative rather than an authentic product, potentially reducing the likelihood of confusion as to source. But that does not necessarily eliminate confusion as to sponsorship, affiliation, or approval. The same evidence could therefore cut in different directions depending on the element at issue—consumer recognition of “Lululemon dupe” terminology supports the proposition that Lululemon has strong source-identifying significance, but it also demonstrates that consumers understand the accused product to be an alternative rather than an authentic Lululemon product.

Fair use principles provide important context for this analysis. In the Ninth Circuit’s foundational “smell-alike” case, Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 567–68 (9th Cir. 1968), the court held that a perfume seller could use the CHANEL trademark to inform consumers that its product simulated CHANEL NO. 5, reasoning that “in the absence of misrepresentation or confusion as to source or sponsorship, a seller in promoting his own goods may use the trademark of another to identify the latter’s goods.” Under this line of authority, comparative advertising that truthfully identifies the product being compared or imitated is generally permissible so long as it does not suggest affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement. At the same time, the trademark owner’s mark may be used only to the extent reasonably necessary to identify the referenced product.[18] The dupe-culture phenomenon may test these boundaries: while “dupe” terminology may signal that a product is an alternative rather than an authentic branded product, extensive use of a brand name in social-media and influencer marketing could, depending on the circumstances, support an argument that consumers are likely to perceive sponsorship, endorsement, or some other commercial association with the trademark owner.

Taken together, these doctrines present overlapping but distinct challenges for dupe-culture disputes. Product-design trade dress generally requires proof of non-functionality and acquired distinctiveness, plus a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation for infringement purposes. Design patents protect ornamental designs but require that the accused design be substantially the same in overall appearance from the perspective of an ordinary observer, taking the prior art into account. Like trade dress, trademark law protects against consumer confusion but may be complicated when consumers deliberately seek out alternatives. How courts resolve the interplay among these theories—and whether “dupe” terminology helps or hurts brand owners—will shape the boundaries of IP protection in the social-media era.

Implications for Brand Owners and Retailers
As social media continues to blur the line between inspiration and imitation, the Lululemon example illustrates how brand protection can intersect with marketing and consumer engagement beyond traditional litigation. Dupe culture, however, does not fit neatly within traditional categories of infringement. For brand owners, the challenge is protecting proprietary product features that consumers associate with a brand without treating every reference to the brand as an infringement. For retailers and competitors, the corresponding challenge is distinguishing permissible comparative or descriptive references from uses that suggest sponsorship, affiliation, or source. Established precedent suggests that competitors may have a viable fair use path when they limit trademark references to what is reasonably necessary to identify the product being compared and avoid presentation choices that imply endorsement or affiliation. For businesses navigating this line, careful consideration of how a brand is referenced and presented, with legal counsel involved before launch, can help preserve that fair-use path while reducing the risk of consumer confusion.

Lululemon’s recent litigation and trademark activity provide some innovations for taking control over where those boundaries may be drawn. The company’s approach demonstrates that brand protection in the social-media era may involve not only enforcing existing IP rights but also understanding and responding to the language consumers use to identify, compare, and discover products. Whether those strategies ultimately expand the practical value of trademark protection or instead highlight the limits of traditional brand protection remains an open question.

ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.