By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco, alleging the retailer sells “confusingly similar” replicas of its popular apparel, including hoodies, jackets, and pants. The athletic wear company claims these “dupes” infringe on its “trade dress” by mimicking its designs so closely that they confuse consumers into believing they are authentic Lululemon products. The company argues that these imitations violate trademark law, seeking damages for lost profits and demanding Costco halt the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing items. Lululemon’s lawsuit specifically targets Costco’s versions of its “Scuba” hoodies, “Define” jackets, and “ABC” stretch pants.
Read the original article here
Lululemon sues Costco, alleging the retailer copied its designs; it’s quite the clash of titans, isn’t it? We’re talking about a high-end athletic wear brand going toe-to-toe with the king of bulk buys. It’s hard to miss the irony – a company known for its premium prices, suing a company famous for its value proposition. That’s a recipe for some serious opinions, and people certainly have them.
Lululemon’s move to sue feels like a bold gamble, and maybe even a bit… desperate? There’s a palpable sense from some that Lululemon’s products, while maybe good, are vastly overpriced for what they are, and the lawsuit just brings that fact into sharper relief. The general feeling is that Lululemon is essentially trying to protect the image of exclusivity, even when the actual product doesn’t warrant such a high price tag. Many are questioning what exactly they’re protecting, as it seems like the underlying designs aren’t unique enough to be copyrighted. It’s difficult to copyright basic garment designs, such as leggings. The common reaction seems to be, “Good luck with that!”
The core of the consumer ire seems to stem from the exorbitant prices of Lululemon’s offerings. There’s a general consensus that the company is charging far too much for what essentially amounts to yoga pants. The mere suggestion of similar products at a fraction of the cost – specifically the Kirkland brand at Costco – ignites a spark of curiosity. If these Costco alternatives come even remotely close to the quality, many people are ready to switch in a heartbeat. It’s almost seen as a challenge to Lululemon: Can you truly justify your prices when a bulk retailer can produce something comparable for a fraction of the cost? This lawsuit is an open invitation for customers to compare.
Costco, of course, is a master of this game. Their business model hinges on providing value, and they’ve made a killing by offering generic versions of popular products. They’re not known for original designs in the same way as some fashion houses. Their business is in affordability. This strategy is so well-known that consumers immediately know what’s up: the expectation is that Kirkland, or whatever the private label happens to be, will offer a decent product at an attractive price point. It’s why we love them.
The comments also hint at a deeper problem for Lululemon. The founder’s past comments, including the brand’s name origin and other problematic statements, have left a bad taste in some mouths. It seems that Lululemon’s brand is tied to some unsavory history. The idea that Lululemon is somehow unique seems to be a joke to many, further fueled by a feeling that the products may use cheap labor and contain other questionable business practices. If the core of Lululemon’s value proposition – its quality and exclusivity – can be undercut by a store like Costco, then the brand’s position is seriously threatened. The legal action might inadvertently expose these vulnerabilities.
The overall sentiment is clear: The customers are on the side of Costco. The lawsuits appear to be a move by Lululemon to protect its inflated profits, rather than defending a unique product. The irony isn’t lost on anyone – Lululemon, with its high prices and controversial past, trying to stop Costco from offering a potentially similar product at a much more reasonable price.
The legal questions, of course, come into play. Can Lululemon effectively copyright or patent the designs of their clothing? Does the lawsuit have any merit, legally speaking? The answer isn’t immediately obvious and depends on the specifics of the designs in question. It’s also difficult to prove that a garment is a copy, and the fact that the products will be made cheaper will further muddy the waters.
Finally, the lawsuit is just a signal that the fitness apparel game is heating up, and that Lululemon is losing market share to its competitors. The response is one of schadenfreude, with many consumers cheering on Costco and its potential ability to disrupt the status quo.