“LULULEMON DUPE”: A new chapter in the battle against dupes

The fight against copycat products or dupes continues to be an ever-challenging battle for brands.  Whilst traditional legal enforcement methods can be very effective, brands do not have unlimited budgets and need to ensure their resources are spent on the most egregious infringers. Additionally, unlike with counterfeit items, dupes do not typically involve direct logo copying or false claims of origin. This can make it more difficult for brands to combat dupes through more traditional forms of IP enforcement.

Owing to these issues, brands are continually looking for new and innovative ways to tackle dupes.  One such example has come from the US, where Lululemon has flipped the script by securing a US trade mark for the phrase “LULULEMON DUPE”. Lululemon’s move signals a potentially significant development: a tactical shift towards more innovative strategies to respond to, or even capitalise on, the viral dupe trend.

The Registration and Rationale of “LULULEMON DUPE”

Lululemon applied for a trade mark for the phrase “LULULEMON DUPE” in December 2024, with the mark being granted in October 2025. The registration covers retail and advertising services, suggesting that Lululemon intends to use the mark in connection with the marketing and sale of its products, or to control how the phrase is used by others in those contexts.

Lululemon has not publicly announced its plans for the trade mark, however, there could be several reasons for this move. Actually having a registered trade mark for the phrase “LULULEMON DUPE” could make enforcement/online take downs slightly easier – any online listings, advertisements, or influencer marketing content using that phrase to advertise/sell a copycat product could automatically be removed. In a world where shoppers explicitly search for dupes of premium products, a trade mark of this kind could be an effective tool to reduce the digital visibility of dupe products and simultaneously redirect shoppers towards the original products.

The move to register the mark could also see Lululemon ‘leaning into dupe culture’ by offering dupe products or collections, thus reclaiming the space that the dupe product manufacturers have been trying to take for themselves.  

Such an approach is consistent with Lululemon’s broader efforts to address the growing issue of dupes, and turn threats into opportunities. One example was the brand’s “Dupe Swap” campaign, which invited consumers to exchange imitation leggings for authentic Lululemon products at a pop-up store in Los Angeles, attracting over 1,000 people, half of whom were new to the brand and under 30. The rationale for the event is obvious – capitalise on consumer’s desire to wear the brand and convince them that the genuine product is worth paying for, therefore, converting them to loyal customers. 

All of these steps demonstrate Lululemon’s considered and innovative approach to protecting its brand in a market which is experiencing an ever-increasing flow of imitation products.

PR Risks and Brand Optics in a World of Dupes

Lululemon’s move to trade mark the dupe ‘brand’ offers not only practical and strategic benefits, but it may also prevent potential reputational and PR risks.

Stories regularly appear in the media over brands taking (what is perceived to be) over-zealous enforcement, particularly against small businesses, individual creators, or resellers. This turns the narrative into a David v Goliath battle, where the brand is cast as the big bad bully, trying to stifle a small player who is of no real threat to the genuine product.  

In a well-publicised instance, Vogue magazine came under fire after sending a cease-and-desist letter to the landlord of a pub in village of Vogue in Cornwall, requesting that the pub stopped using the word “Vogue” in its name. On receipt of the letter, the landlord of the pub went to the press and pointed out that the pub’s name was related to Cornish word “vogue”, (which means “blowing house”), rather than the world-famous magazine.  Following the unfavourable press, Vogue's publishers later sent a framed apology to the landlord, admitting that they did not need to send a cease-and-desist letter on this occasion.

Whilst anyone using the term “Lululemon Dupe” to advertise or sell products is unlikely to be an innocent third party (like the Cornish pub described above), having the registered mark means Lululemon can likely rely on online takedowns of any infringing listings, without having to encounter the potential PR pitfalls of a cease-and-desist letter finding its way onto social media. 

Balancing legal rights with brand perception is harder than ever in a world where enforcement efforts can be displayed to the world at large in one click, and the court of public opinion can quickly shift the narrative.  

Before taking enforcement action, brands should weigh the perceived benefits of taking action against the PR risks. Is the dupe likely to create a real likelihood of confusion, mislead consumers or materially harm reputation or revenue? If the answer is no or marginal, the ‘legal win’ may not be worth the reputational cost.

The Bigger Picture for Brands

A multi-layered enforcement approach remains essential for brands to stay ahead of dupes. Effective brand protection often requires a varied IP portfolio (including trade marks (which cover more than just brand names but also packaging and products themselves) and registered designs) and a combination of monitoring, takedown requests, marketplace control, cease-and-desist correspondence and litigation (when necessary).

In their fight against dupes, brands should also remain alert to the PR sensitivities associated with enforcement, ensuring that measures to protect IP do not backfire and cause more issues than the original infringement. 

Ultimately, the registration of the “LULULEMON DUPE” trade mark underlines the importance of businesses being innovative and measured in their response to imitation. As the line between inspiration and infringement continues to blur, strategic IP management, and careful consideration of enforcement optics is paramount.

Ultimately however, there is always a time and place for taking quick and effective enforcement action (including litigation) against the right targets. Any brand thinking about litigation, should consider the tactical and cost-saving advantages of pursuing actions in the Court of Session (Scotland’s highest civil court). For more on the benefits of enforcing IP rights in Scotland, see our previous article: World IP Day: benefits of enforcing IP rights in Scotland.

Article co-authored by Amy Flight, Trainee Solicitor at CMS.