While inexpensive “cost-effectiveness replacements” and so-called “dupe” modeled after high-priced brand products have emerged as new keywords in the fashion industry, athleisure brand Lululemon has put the brakes on this.
According to the Associated Press and the Washington Post on the 1st, Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco in federal court in California on the 25th of last month.
Lululemon claimed that Costco produced and sold similar products that imitated the design of at least six products, including its flagship products, “Scuba Hoodie,” “Diffine Zip-Up Jacket,” and “Men’s ABC Pants.”
It also pointed out that although consumers may mistake Costco products for genuine Lululemon products, Costco has not done anything to prevent this.
“As an innovation-oriented company that invests heavily in research, development, and design, we are very serious about protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights,” Lululemon said in a statement. “We take legal action if necessary.”
Costco has been producing a variety of consumer goods such as alcohol, vitamins, butter, and diapers through its own brand ‘Kirkland Signature’. Recently, low-cost clothing that imitates high-priced athleisure products has attracted attention on social media, and consumers who want to purchase trendy products at reasonable prices have paid attention to this.
The “duff” controversy is not a new phenomenon, but due to the recent development of SNS, the dupe shopping culture is spreading more rapidly. Products that mimic ultra-high-end luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton, Hermes, and Bottega Veneta are also gaining popularity by introducing “affordable alternatives.”
In fact, Hermes’ $1,000 slippers are being sold as a $15 replacement by U.S. retail chain Target, while products similar to the $2800 Bottega Veneta Hobo Bag are also being sold for $99 by upstart brand Queens.
Regarding the lawsuit, North Eastern University law professor Alexandra Roberts said, “There are many uncertain areas related to design patents, trademark rights, and possible consumer confusion,” adding, “The expression ‘duff’ alone does not tell whether it is legal or illegal.”
He also added, “Unlike ‘fake’ that duplicates brand logos or trademarks alike, ‘pure dupes’ that imitate only their appearance or atmosphere are often legally permitted.”
JENNIFER KIM
US ASIA JOURNAL
