Lululemon accuses Costco of selling knockoff apparel

Anabelle Colaco
01 Jul 2025, 13:44 GMT+10

Lululemon, the Canadian brand known for its premium yoga pants and stylish workout gear, has taken Costco to court, accusing the retail giant of copying its clothing designs
Filed in California federal court late last week, the lawsuit alleges that Costco is selling sweatshirts, jackets, and pants under its Kirkland label that mimic Lululemon’s signature products — including its Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants
A Lululemon spokesperson said the company is serious about protecting its intellectual property and takes legal action when necessary

Vancouver, Canada: A high-stakes legal showdown is brewing in the world of athleisure. Lululemon, the Canadian brand known for its premium yoga pants and stylish workout gear, has taken Costco to court, accusing the retail giant of copying its clothing designs.

Filed in California federal court late last week, the lawsuit alleges that Costco is selling sweatshirts, jackets, and pants under its Kirkland label that mimic Lululemon's signature products — including its Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants.

"These ‘dupes' violate Lululemon's patent and trademark rights," the complaint states, claiming the designs are so similar they may confuse customers into thinking Lululemon produced them for Costco.

"Indeed, one of the purposes of selling 'dupes' is to confuse consumers into believing they are buying authentic Lululemon products, the suit said, referencing media reports from outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post that have called the Kirkland versions knockoffs.

A Lululemon spokesperson said the company is serious about protecting its intellectual property and takes legal action when necessary. Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lululemon is seeking unspecified damages and a court order to block further sales of the alleged lookalikes.

The case is titled Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc v. Costco Wholesale Corp, and it was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under case number 2:25-cv-05864.