[Copycat. Photo Credit to Pexels]

Lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco on June 27, 2025, claiming the retailer copied its signature clothing designs and sold unauthorized knockoffs.

The case has quickly become a flashpoint in the fashion industry, raising questions about intellectual property protection and fair competition in the retail market.

Lululemon alleges that Costco copied and sold large quantities of its popular designs, like the Scuba hoodie, Define jacket, and ABC pants, which are protected by patents and trademarks.

In an emailed statement to CBC News, a Lululemon spokesperson said, “As an innovation-led company that invests significantly in the research, development, and design of our products, we take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary." 

The athletic apparel company also claims that Costco's cheaper prices have negatively impacted Lululemon’s sales.

The company is seeking legal protection for its intellectual property rights and demanding fair market practices.

Costco stated that its products are made in compliance with legal standards and that it did not illegally copy Lululemon's designs.

The warehouse retailer emphasized its commitment to providing customers with products at fair prices while promoting fair competition in the market.

Costco also said customers appreciate the good quality for low prices and that its products are clearly distinguishable from Lululemon’s offerings.

Legal disputes similar to that of Costco and Lululemon have been consistently  repeated throughout history.

Legal disputes over designs or trademarks between companies are not a new phenomenon.

They have occurred many times in the past, illustrating the delicate balance companies must maintain between protecting their brands and competing in the marketplace.

A famous example occurred around 2015, when Adidas filed a lawsuit against Forever 21. 

Adidas has used the three-stripe design since 1952 and has had it registered as a trademark.

Adidas alleged that Forever 21 used this design without permission on its clothes, confusing customers and hurting Adidas's brand.

Adidas took legal steps to stop Forever 21 from selling those products and asked for damages.

Adidas argued that the stripes are not just decoration but are important for identifying its  brand.

Forever 21 countered that Adidas's claim was overly broad, arguing that its stripes look different and many clothing items use stripes just for decoration, so Adidas cannot own all stripes.

The retailer also contended that Adidas was attempting to claim too many stripe variations, like two stripes, four stripes, or stripes in different color and widths. 

Forever 21 said its products don’t confuse customers and asked the court to dismiss the case.

When examining both the Lululemon and Adidas cases, the importance of protecting original designs becomes clear.

Lululemon is fighting to stop Costco from copying its designs and damaging its brand, while Adidas fought to protect its famous stripe design from Forever 21's use.

These cases demonstrate that brands seek to protect their creativity but face challenges from similar designs and fair market competition.

Court decisions and consumer perceptions can change the results, so both designers and retailers need to be clear about what makes their products special and at the same time offer fair prices and good quality.

Ultimately, customers should carefully compare claims, quality, and prices before making purchasing decisions.