Lululemon has successfully obtained a trademark for the term “Lululemon dupe” in the United States, as per documents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark was granted on October 21 after the company’s initial application in December 2024. This trademark covers advertising, marketing, and retail services both in physical stores and online, giving Lululemon exclusive rights to utilize the phrase for promotional purposes.
There is currently no similar trademark registration found on the Canadian Trademarks Database. This strategic move by Lululemon is seen as a proactive measure to safeguard itself against imitations, according to Susan Scafidi, the founder of the non-profit Fashion Law Institute and a professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York.
Unlike counterfeit or knock-off products, “dupes” are items resembling a popular brand but sold at a lower price point. Scafidi notes that the term “dupe” lacks the negative implications associated with fakes, causing concern among brands about potential market encroachment by such products.
By owning the “Lululemon dupe” phrase, Lululemon could potentially take action against individuals or businesses using it for commercial purposes such as advertising or marketing. These restrictions are primarily focused on the language itself rather than the actual products.
Brands offering Lululemon-inspired items may avoid explicitly using the phrase in their product descriptions. However, they could still face repercussions if the term appears in metadata, potentially boosting their visibility in online searches for Lululemon dupes, explains Ashlee Froese, a fashion and branding lawyer based in Toronto.
According to Daniel Tsai, a business and law professor, merely owning the trademark might suffice to deter competitors from continuing to sell similar products. The enforcement of the trademark may necessitate Lululemon’s active utilization of the phrase as mandated by U.S. trademark law.
Scafidi highlights Lululemon’s proactive approach in safeguarding its brand, citing previous instances such as organizing a “dupe swap” event in Los Angeles to redirect attention to their original products. The company has also been involved in legal disputes, including suing Costco for allegedly selling imitations of its popular clothing items.
Looking ahead, it is plausible that other companies may follow suit and seek to trademark their brand names along with the term “dupe.” Aritzia, for instance, has initiated trademark applications for “Aritzia dupe” in both the U.S. and Canada, aiming to protect its intellectual property rights amidst the prevalence of imitation products in the market.
In the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual property protection, brands must continuously innovate to combat the proliferation of copycat products. As Scafidi puts it, the dynamic between brands and imitators will remain a perpetual challenge requiring ongoing adaptation and vigilance.