Beyond the Lookalike: How Dupes are Testing the Boundaries of IP Law 

In today’s consumer-driven market, it is no surprise that the increased demand for luxury and designer goods has led to a growing prevalence of lower-priced imitations in the market.  These imitations, which are commonly referred to as “dupes,” closely replicate the look or functionality of expensive designer goods but are sold at a fraction of the price.  Unlike counterfeits, dupes typically do not use protected trademarks or logos of the genuine item. This distinction introduces complex challenges under intellectual property (IP) law to determine when imitation crosses the line into infringement.

The widespread availability and popularity of dupes pose a significant risk to brand owners, particularly in the form of diminished brand equity and weakened product distinctiveness.  These risks are heightened when consumers associate the quality or functionality of a dupe with the original product, potentially leading to reputational harm. This trend raises important questions about the scope and effectiveness of IP protections in a time where dupes are not only widely accessible but often normalized as part of a broader “dupe culture”.

To protect against the growing impact of “dupe culture,” IP owners are increasingly using multi-faceted enforcement strategies. These include registering trade dress, securing design patents, enforcing trademark rights, and leveraging unfair competition laws. A recent notable example is the lawsuit filed by athletic apparel company Lululemon against Costco Wholesale (“Costco”) on June 27, 2025.[1]  In this case, Lululemon accuses Costco of selling lookalike versions of its signature SCUBA® hoodies and sweatshirts, DEFINE® jackets, and ABC pants without license or consent.[2]  The complaint alleges that Costco “unlawfully traded upon [Lululemon’s] reputation, goodwill and sweat equity” by offering infringing products that mimic its protected trade dress and patented designs.[3]

Lululemon accuses Costco of deliberately fostering “source confusion” by selling dupes that closely resemble its iconic apparel. In the complaint, Lululemon claims that Costco’s procurement practices of sourcing from the same manufacturers as high-end brands reinforce the perception of a shared origin between its private-label products and the originals.[4] Lululemon specifically asserts that Costco “is known to use manufacturers of popular branded products for its own KIRKLAND® ‘private label’ products,” and that these private-label sales constitute “over a third of [Costco’s] sales.”[5] However, Lululemon argues, neither Costco nor the original manufacturers disclose this connection to consumers and “this source ambiguity preconditions at least some consumers into believing that private label, KIRKLAND-branded dupes are in fact manufactured by the authentic supplier of the ‘original’ products.”[6]

Lululemon contends that this source ambiguity on the part of Costco is part of a broader strategy to capitalize on consumer confusion. “One of the reasons retailers such as [Costco] desire to sell dupes,” the complaint alleges, “is the potential for confusion and perceived association… that benefits the retailer.”[7] Essentially, Lululemon argues that the sale of lookalike products exploits the goodwill of established brands by encouraging mistaken assumptions of origin, affiliation, or endorsement.”[8]

However, this argument does not account for consumer awareness and sophistication.  On platforms like TikTok, influencers openly promote “Lululemon dupes” using hashtags that explicitly identify the products as imitations. Far from being misled, many consumers actively seek out these alternatives, valuing affordability over authenticity. In fact, Lululemon’s own complaint references the “#LululemonDupes” hashtag, suggesting consumers know they are not buying the original.[9] This raises a central legal question: If consumers knowingly purchase dupes, is there a likelihood of confusion sufficient to support an infringement claim?

A similar issue was addressed in Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc., where Benefit alleged that e.l.f.’s Lash ‘N Roll mascara infringed the trademark and trade dress of its well-known Roller Lash product.[10] The defendant, e.l.f., countered that the appeal of dupes lies in the recognition of their imitation, not in deception, and that its consumers were brand-savvy enough to tell the difference.[11]  Specifically, e.l.f. argued “the success of products like Lash ‘N Roll – often referred to as duplicates or ‘dupes’ of their more expensive counterparts – relies on consumers distinguishing between the expensive inspiration and the product at hand” and as a result “does not cause the consumer confusion necessary to infringe on Benefit’s trademark or trade dress.”[12] The court agreed, finding insufficient evidence of consumer confusion and highlighting the sophistication of cosmetic consumers influenced by branding and social media. As the court succinctly put it: “Benefit has not shown that Lash ‘N Roll, while it is a ‘dupe’ of Roller Lash, actually dupes any consumers.”[13] This reasoning underscores some challenges that Lululemon may face in its lawsuit against Costco.  While Lululemon alleges deliberate source confusion and exploitation of consumer assumptions, Costco could similarly argue that its private-label buyers are informed and intentionally being drawn to value, not deception.

As dupes continue to grow in popularity and perhaps acceptance, courts may be forced to draw clearer distinctions between lawful competition and unlawful infringement. The outcome of the Lululemon-Costco lawsuit may offer critical guidance on how trade dress, design patent protections, and consumer perception intersect in a marketplace where imitation has become not only normalized, but strategic.