“Copycat” Accusations: Lululemon Demands Jury Trial in Costco Lawsuit
Lululemon is taking Costco to court. The popular activewear brand says Costco copied its leggings. This isn’t just about clothing. It’s about brand image, trust, and legal rights.
The dispute began when Lululemon spotted Costco offering leggings that closely resembled its designs. These were under Costco’s Kirkland label, and the price was much lower. Lululemon didn’t like that. They’re concerned that shoppers could mistake the lower-priced item for an original Lululemon product.
Now, things are serious Lululemon is seeking to have the case decided by a jury rather than a judge. That’s a bold move. It shows how much they care about protecting their brand.
We’ll analyse the situation, why it’s important, and what the possible outcomes could be. Let’s dive into this legal battle between two retail giants.
Background of the Dispute
Lululemon stands as a top name in premium athletic apparel, with standout pieces like its Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants among its bestsellers. These products are known for their fit, fabric, and premium price.
Meanwhile, Costco also sells activewear through its Kirkland and Spyder labels. Their apparel comes at a lower price point and is easily accessible to a broad range of customers. But Lululemon noticed that some Kirkland pieces looked too close to their own.
The issue became more visible online. Shoppers were using hashtags like #LululemonDupes to show comparisons. Lululemon initially attempted to handle the issue privately by issuing a cease-and-desist notice, but Costco continued to offer the products for sale. That’s when Lululemon decided to go to court.
On June 27, 2025, the company officially filed a lawsuit in a federal court in California.
Lululemon’s Allegations Against Costco
Lululemon’s lawsuit claims that Costco duplicated designs that are legally protected. They argue that Costco’s Kirkland and Spyder items closely resemble Lululemon’s designs in a way that could confuse. These include similar cuts, stitching, and fabric styles.
To prove the claim, Lululemon presented side-by-side product comparisons in court. For example:
- Lululemon’s ABC pants sell for $128. Costco’s version costs $20.
- Lululemon’s Define jacket is priced at $128. The similar Spyder version at Costco costs $21.90.
Lululemon says these similarities hurt their brand image. They argue that Costco is benefiting from Lululemon’s design without putting in the same level of work or cost. For this reason, they’re requesting the court to:
- Stop Costco from selling the products
- Pay damages for lost profits
- Recognize their design rights
Costco’s Response
As of now, Costco hasn’t made an official statement about the case. But legal experts say Costco may argue that the designs aren’t legally protected in the way Lululemon claims.
Costco could also say that their clothing is clearly labeled and priced differently. They might argue that no one is confused between the two brands. These are points that Costco may use in its legal defense.
Why a Jury Trial?
Lululemon is asking for a jury to decide the case instead of a judge. This shows that the company wants a group of everyday people to hear their side.
A jury trial brings real-world understanding into the court. It can also reflect how regular customers view brand value and design differences. Lululemon may feel this gives them a better chance of being understood and supported.
Impact on the Retail and Fashion Industry
This case could change how brands and stores handle product design in the future. If Lululemon wins, it may lead to stronger protection of unique clothing designs. More brands might begin patenting their styles to stop copycats.
Retailers like Costco would then have to be more careful. They may choose to avoid creating clothes that closely resemble premium items. This could limit the rise of cheaper “dupes” in the market.
But if Costco wins, it might encourage more retailers to offer low-cost versions of popular designs. This could benefit budget-conscious shoppers, but it might also spark more lawsuits in the future.
In both cases, the fashion world will likely pay close attention. The outcome could set a standard for what counts as design theft and how far retailers can go in creating lookalike items.
Final Thoughts
This case goes beyond a simple dispute between two brands; it’s about drawing the line between creative influence and design copying in the fashion world. Should the look of a product be protected just like a logo or brand name? That’s the big question.
As the case moves forward, we’ll continue to follow what happens next. No matter who wins, this legal fight is likely to shape the way brands protect their style and how we, as shoppers, experience choice and pricing in the retail world.