- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Costco Sued By Lululemon For Selling ‘Knockoff’ Clothes
As per the lawsuit, Costco’s ‘dupes’ violate Lululemon’s patent and trademark rights in its clothing designs and may confuse potential customers.
Canadian athletic wear maker Lululemon has sued Costco in a California federal court, alleging that the wholesale seller sells ‘knockoff’ sweatshirts, jackets and pants that illegally copy the former’s products. As per the lawsuit, Costco’s ‘dupes’ violate Lululemon’s patent and trademark rights in its clothing designs and may confuse potential customers. Costco spokespersons did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the suit.
A Lululemon spokesperson reportedly stated, "We take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary.” As per the complaint, Costco sells clothes under its label, Kirkland, which copy Lululemon’s Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants. The suit refers to articles calling Costo products ‘dupes’ of Lululemon’s products and states that similar designs could confuse buyers into thinking that Lululemon made the clothes for Costco’s private label. "Indeed, one of the purposes of selling 'dupes' is to confuse consumers" into believing that they are the authentic products, the suit reportedly states.



