As of 21 October 2025, the athleisure brand Lululemon now owns a US trade mark registration for "LULULEMON DUPE". This marks the latest in the company's ongoing efforts to crackdown on "dupes" and lookalike products.
Famously, Lululemon held a "dupe swap" event in 2023 which allowed customers to trade in their lookalike "dupes" for genuine Lululemon products free of charge so they could see the difference in quality for themselves. The brand has also since registered the mark DUPE SWAP in the US in relation to retail and advertising services in class 35.
The new trade mark registration for LULULEMON DUPE adds another string to their bow in this fight. Whilst the mark is only registered in class 35 in relation to retail, advertising and marketing services (rather than clothing goods themselves), it could be used as an enforcement tool against third parties using this specific phrase to sell or advertise lookalike products, thereby limiting the opportunities for the Lululemon name to be explicitly associated with the sale of such items. It remains to be seen how effective this might as an enforcement tool and whether the scope of their rights will be sufficient to have a meaningful impact on the dupe landscape, if this is their intention.
Coupled with the registration for DUPE SWAP and the event in 2023, it is clear that Lululemon have accepted the reality of dupe culture and that they are looking to find opportunities for themselves in this environment, whether this be through enforcement or trying to take back the narrative and promote the quality of their genuine products. They have also recently filed a lawsuit against Costco alleging that the sale of lookalike products has damaged the brand's reputation and resulted in a loss of sales.
The fashion brand Aritzia has had a similar idea in terms of trade mark protection, as they also have pending US and Canadian applications for the mark ARITZIA DUPE, as well as three registrations in China for the mark in relation to leather goods, clothing, and advertising/marketing services.
If these brands make positive headway with their DUPE trade marks, perhaps others will consider following suit in future.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
