Updated November 2025
The LULULEMON DUPE Trademark
Lululemon Athletica Canada, Inc., owner of the famed but pricey athletic clothing brand, Lululemon, obtained a trademark registration in October 2025 for “LULULEMON DUPE.” Lululemon’s trademark registration describes “retail store services featuring clothing, footwear, headwear, yoga and athletic accessories, yoga equipment, athletic equipment and bags; online retail store services featuring clothing, footwear, headwear, yoga and athletic accessories, yoga equipment, athletic equipment and bags; advertising services; advertising and marketing; online advertising services; providing advertising, marketing and promotional services, namely, development of advertising campaigns provided through the internet, television, and print media” in International Class 35.
When Lululemon filed their trademark application in December of 2024, they cited priority through a prior-filed non-US trademark Application, which allowed them to benefit from a loop hole to one of the United States’ most challenging trademark requirements. In the United States, prior to obtaining a trademark registration at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a trademark owner must show that they are using that brand in United States commerce to sell the products they list in their application. By sending a trademark application into the USPTO from another country, an Applicant can circumvent this use requirement for the first 6 years of registration.
There are a few methods of achieving this. In filing basis 44(d) USPTO trademark applications, the Applicant is claiming priority through a non-US Application, with a 44(e) Application, the Applicant is claiming priority through a non-US Registration, while the 66(a) filing basis is for Applications sent to the US through the designation of their World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) filing.
For more information about the International Trademark System, see our article here.
How Does Owning The “Lululemon Dupe” Trademark Help LuluLemon
It seems unlikely that Lululemon plans to create a new store called “Lululemon Dupe”. So, why exactly did they pursue the trademark registration for it?
The Rise of ONLINE Dupe Culture
The term “dupe”, shorthand for “duplicate” or “look-alike,” has exploded on social media. A search for hashtags like #lululemondupe on TikTok, show thousands of posts promoting cheaper alternatives to the brand’s most popular designs.
By owning the trademark for “Lululemon Dupe”, Lululemon has created many options for themselves to stop the widespread use of that term. First, Lululemon can use social media and online retailer takedown mechanisms. This is a simple procedure where a trademark owner files an online complaint to a social media platform or online retailer, asking them to remove a post that uses the protected trademark. Taking advantage of takedown policies could essentially hobble the entire ecosystem of posts and hashtags using the term. Second, Lululemon can use their registration to fight individual use of the term “Lululemon Dupe” on social media posts or online store listings, by sending a cease and desist letter or even suing in federal court.
For more information about trademark enforcement strategies, see our article at this link.
Should Brands Take LuluLemon’s Lead on This Enforcement StRategy?
Lululemon’s strategy in obtaining “Lululemon Dupe” seems promising, but it is not without its challenges and risks. While non-US companies are able to bypass the USPTO’s use in commerce requirement for the first 6 years of registration, they still have to file a declaration that affirms under penalty of perjury that they have a bonafide intent to use the trademark in US commerce. So, even though Lululemon used the loophole to avoid the USPTO requirement, they did have to file that declaration. This is a risky move if their true intent is enforcement online.
If they do not actually plan to create a brand using the Lululemon Dupe trademark, their trademark might be difficult to enforce in a litigation setting at the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) or in Federal Court. Other than using takedown options or enforcing through cease and desist letters, it might not be a good idea for Lululemon to race to court with infringement claims. While having a trademark registration offers a presumption of validity, that validity can be challenged if someone makes an argument that Lululemon doesn’t have a bona fide intent to use the trademark in US commerce. This would cause them to lose their trademark entirely.
Concluding Practice Note
The USPTO has been cracking down on fraudulent applications, including applications where an Applicant alleges use that does not exist. This is technically fraud and cause result in sanctions for both the attorney and applicant. Our trademark law firm would advise the client of these risks and only submit this application if there really was an intent to use the trademark. Long term brand protection and strategy is critical — and short-sighted decisions can make long-term impacts.
Have questions about enforcing your trademark? We help businesses and creatives enforce their trademarks with strategic solutions, from cease-and-desist letters and takedowns to full TTAB representation or litigation.
Stemer Law (Stemer, P.A.) is a Denver trademark law firm serving clients across the U.S. and abroad. With 1,000+ trademarks filed, we make brand protection simple, affordable, and effective. To speak with a trademark attorney contact us at hello@stemerlaw.com or (303) 928-1094.
Leave a Reply