Lululemon Costco Lawsuit: Full Timeline & 2026 Update

Quick Answer Summary

Key Detail	Information
Case Name	Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Case Number	2:25-cv-05864
Court	U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filed	June 27, 2025
Current Status	Partially settled; litigation remains ongoing
Next Key Date	Court-ordered mediation due by July 31, 2026

Court Record Reference: Readers seeking primary-source information can review filings in Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-05864, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Court filings may be available through PACER, CourtListener, and other court-record databases.

The Lululemon Costco lawsuit has become one of the most closely watched intellectual property disputes in the retail apparel industry. At the center of the case is a question that extends far beyond leggings, hoodies, and workout jackets: when does an affordable “dupe” become an unlawful copy?

The dispute emerged during a period when social media platforms, particularly TikTok, helped popularize the concept of product dupes. Videos comparing luxury and premium products to lower-cost alternatives routinely attract millions of views, and hashtags related to Lululemon dupes have generated significant consumer interest. Retailers such as Costco have benefited from growing demand for budget-friendly alternatives that resemble premium products.

Lululemon alleges that several apparel items sold through Costco infringe its intellectual property rights, including design patents, trade dress, and trademarks. Costco disputes the allegations, and the court has not determined liability. Because the litigation remains active, the allegations discussed below reflect claims made in court filings and should not be interpreted as findings of wrongdoing.

The case is also significant because it may help define how courts evaluate “dupe culture” in the modern retail marketplace. As premium brands increasingly seek legal protection for signature product designs, the outcome could influence how competitors market similar-looking products in the future.

Background: How the Dispute Began

The conflict between Lululemon and Costco did not begin in a courtroom.

According to court filings, Lululemon first attempted to resolve its concerns through a cease-and-desist letter sent to Costco on November 11, 2024. In that letter, Lululemon allegedly informed Costco that certain products sold through its stores and online platform infringed various intellectual property rights associated with Lululemon apparel.

The parties did not reach a resolution.

As a result, Lululemon filed a federal lawsuit on June 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit, formally docketed as Case No. 2:25-cv-05864, asserts multiple claims involving patents, trademarks, trade dress, and unfair competition.

The complaint also referenced a January 2025 Washington Post article discussing the popularity of Costco “dupe” products. According to Lululemon, the article illustrated how consumers and media outlets increasingly associated certain Costco products with higher-priced alternatives sold by established brands.

Lululemon cited that coverage as part of its broader argument that some consumers may recognize the products as intended substitutes for premium Lululemon merchandise. Whether that evidence ultimately supports the company’s legal claims remains an issue to be resolved through litigation.

Since the filing of the lawsuit, the case has attracted significant attention from intellectual property lawyers, retail analysts, and consumers interested in the growing debate over product duplication in the apparel industry.

The Products at the Center of the Case

Several apparel items form the basis of the lawsuit. Lululemon alleges that these products improperly copy protected aspects of some of its most recognizable clothing lines.

Importantly, Costco is the named defendant in the lawsuit, not the third-party brands whose labels appear on certain products. However, Lululemon separately pursued claims involving manufacturer Jacques Moret Inc., which is associated with some of the products identified in the complaint.

Product Comparison

Lululemon Product	Approximate Price	Costco-Sold Product	Approximate Price	Alleged Issue
Scuba Hoodie	$118	Danskin Half-Zip Pullover	~$8	Design patent and trademark-related claims
Scuba Hoodie	$118	Danskin Ladies Half-Zip Hoodie	~$8	Design patent and trademark-related claims
Define Jacket	$128	Jockey Ladies Yoga Jacket	~$22	Trade dress-related claims
Define Jacket	$128	Spyder Women’s Yoga Jacket	~$22	Trade dress-related claims
ABC Pants	$128	Kirkland Signature 5 Pocket Performance Pant	~$10	Design and unfair competition allegations
Scuba-Branded Outerwear	Varies	Hi-Tec Men’s Scuba Full Zip	Varies	Trademark infringement allegations

These products have become central to the public discussion surrounding the Lululemon Costco dupe lawsuit, particularly because of the substantial price differences between the original products and the allegedly similar alternatives.

The Scuba Hoodie vs. Costco Alternatives

One of the most heavily discussed products in the litigation is the Lululemon Scuba Hoodie, a premium outerwear item retailing for approximately $118.

Lululemon alleges that certain Danskin-branded half-zip products sold through Costco copied protected design elements associated with the Scuba hoodie. The complaint points to features that Lululemon claims are covered by design patents, including distinctive pocket placement and ornamental seam configurations.

The company also raises trademark-related allegations connected to the use of the term “Scuba” in connection with certain apparel products.

The Define Jacket Dispute

Another major focus of the case involves the Lululemon Define Jacket, which typically retails for approximately $128.

According to the complaint, Costco sold Jockey and Spyder-branded jackets that allegedly mimic the distinctive visual appearance of the Define Jacket. Lululemon contends that the jacket’s recognizable seam placement and silhouette function as source-identifying features that consumers associate with the Lululemon brand.

These allegations form the basis of the company’s trade dress infringement claims.

The ABC Pants and Kirkland Performance Pant

Lululemon also challenges Costco’s sale of the Kirkland Signature 5 Pocket Performance Pant, which reportedly sold for around $10.

Lululemon alleges that the product improperly capitalizes on the popularity and commercial success of its ABC Pants, a well-known menswear offering that retails for approximately $128. The allegations include claims related to unfair competition and product similarity.

The Hi-Tec Scuba Product

The lawsuit further identifies the Hi-Tec Men’s Scuba Full Zip as a product that allegedly infringes Lululemon’s trademark rights.

Unlike the design-focused allegations involving jackets and pants, this portion of the case centers primarily on the use of the word “SCUBA,” which Lululemon asserts is a federally registered trademark used in connection with certain apparel products.

The Legal Claims, Explained in Plain English

The lawsuit contains several different legal theories. Although intellectual property disputes can become highly technical, the basic concepts are relatively straightforward.

Design Patent Infringement

One of Lululemon’s primary claims involves design patent infringement.

A design patent protects how a product looks rather than how it functions. In this case, Lululemon alleges that certain aspects of the Scuba hoodie’s appearance are protected by federal design patents.

According to the complaint, those protected features include elements such as the hoodie’s distinctive kangaroo pocket arrangement and ornamental seam patterns. Lululemon contends that certain Costco-sold products incorporate substantially similar visual features.

To succeed on a design patent claim, Lululemon must ultimately demonstrate that an ordinary observer would view the accused design as substantially the same as the patented design.

Trade Dress Infringement

The lawsuit also includes claims for trade dress infringement.

Trade dress refers to the overall visual appearance of a product when that appearance helps consumers identify the product’s source. Unlike trademarks, which often involve names or logos, trade dress can protect distinctive design features.

Lululemon alleges that the Define Jacket’s curvilinear seam patterns on the front and back of the garment have become recognizable to consumers and serve as indicators of origin. The company claims that certain competing jackets sold through Costco copy those identifying characteristics.

To prevail on these claims, Lululemon must generally establish that the design is distinctive and that consumers are likely to be confused regarding the source of the products.

Trademark Infringement

Trademark claims form another major component of the litigation.

Lululemon alleges infringement of its federally registered SCUBA trademark, which it uses in connection with hoodies, jackets, coats, tops, and related apparel products.

According to the complaint, the use of the word “Scuba” on certain competing products could create consumer confusion regarding sponsorship, affiliation, or product origin.

The complaint also references the color designation “Tidewater Teal.” Lululemon alleges that the term has acquired marketplace recognition associated with its products and that unauthorized use may contribute to consumer confusion.

Unfair Competition Claims

In addition to patent and trademark claims, Lululemon asserts violations of federal and state unfair competition laws.

Specifically, the lawsuit includes claims under the Lanham Act, the primary federal trademark statute in the United States, as well as California’s unfair competition laws.

In simple terms, these claims allege that Costco’s conduct may unfairly benefit from the reputation, goodwill, and consumer recognition associated with Lululemon products. Lululemon contends that consumers may mistakenly believe certain products are connected to, approved by, or affiliated with the company.

Costco denies wrongdoing, and none of these allegations have been proven in court. The litigation remains ongoing, with several claims still awaiting resolution.

Settlement Update: What Happened in 2026?

The most significant development in the Lululemon Costco lawsuit update 2026 occurred on February 27, 2026, when Lululemon, Costco, and manufacturer Jacques Moret Inc. filed a joint stipulation resolving certain portions of the litigation.

The agreement addressed infringement claims involving specific Danskin and Jockey-branded outerwear products that had been identified in the lawsuit. These products were among the most discussed items in the case because they were allegedly similar to Lululemon’s Scuba hoodie and Define jacket designs.

The settlement represented a notable milestone because it resolved claims that had become a focal point of the dispute. However, it did not end the litigation entirely.

Resolution of the Patent Challenge

Before the settlement, Jacques Moret had challenged the validity of two design patents associated with the Lululemon Scuba hoodie.

Patent invalidation challenges are common in intellectual property litigation. A defendant may argue that a patent should never have been granted or that it lacks the legal requirements necessary for protection.

As part of the February 2026 resolution, the dispute involving those patent challenges was also resolved. While the parties did not publicly litigate the issue to a final court ruling, the agreement effectively ended that portion of the conflict.

Why the Settlement Does Not End the Case

Despite headlines referring to a Lululemon Costco settlement, the federal lawsuit remains active.

The February 2026 agreement resolved only specific claims involving certain Danskin and Jockey products. Several important allegations remain pending against Costco.

The distinction between a partial settlement and a complete case resolution is important. Federal litigation often involves multiple products, legal theories, and parties. As a result, some claims may be resolved while others continue through discovery, motion practice, and settlement discussions.

In this case, the settlement narrowed the scope of the dispute but did not eliminate all contested issues. The court continues to oversee the remaining claims, and future rulings could significantly affect the direction of the case.

Claims That Remain Active

According to court filings, unresolved portions of the lawsuit continue to involve:

Spyder Women’s Yoga Jacket
Kirkland Signature 5 Pocket Performance Pant
Hi-Tec Men’s Scuba Full Zip
Certain trademark-related claims
Certain trade dress-related claims
Various unfair competition allegations

Because these issues remain pending, the case cannot accurately be described as fully settled.

Instead, the most accurate description is that the lawsuit has been partially settled while broader litigation continues.

What’s Next in the Litigation?

The next major milestone is a court-directed mediation process.

The court has ordered the parties to participate in mediation by July 31, 2026.

Although mediation is often less visible than courtroom proceedings, it can be one of the most important stages of a civil lawsuit.

What Is Mediation?

Mediation is a confidential negotiation process conducted with the assistance of a neutral third party known as a mediator.

Unlike a judge, a mediator does not decide who wins or loses. Instead, the mediator helps the parties identify areas of agreement, evaluate litigation risks, and explore possible settlement options.

Many complex intellectual property disputes resolve during mediation because it allows parties to negotiate outcomes that may not be available through a court judgment.

What Could Happen Next?

Several outcomes remain possible.

1. A Full Settlement

The parties could reach an agreement that resolves all remaining claims.

A comprehensive settlement could include financial terms, product modifications, licensing arrangements, product discontinuations, or other negotiated solutions.

2. A Partial Settlement

The parties could resolve some remaining claims while continuing to litigate others.

This outcome would be consistent with what has already occurred in the case through the February 2026 stipulation.

3. Continued Litigation

If mediation does not result in a settlement, the lawsuit will likely continue through additional litigation stages.

These may include:

Fact discovery
Expert witness reports
Depositions
Summary judgment motions
Pretrial proceedings
Potential trial

Intellectual property disputes often involve extensive analysis of consumer perception, product design features, trademark rights, and damages calculations. Because those issues can be highly technical and expensive to litigate, many cases ultimately resolve before reaching a jury.

At this stage, no final outcome has been announced.

What This Means for Shoppers

One of the most common questions surrounding the Costco Kirkland Lululemon dupe controversy is whether consumers can still purchase the disputed products.

For now, the answer is generally yes.

The filing of a lawsuit does not automatically prohibit a retailer from selling the products involved in the dispute. Unless a court issues an injunction or the parties voluntarily remove products from the marketplace, sales can continue while litigation remains pending.

As a result, some products identified in the complaint may remain available depending on inventory levels, supplier decisions, and Costco’s own business practices.

Could That Change?

Potentially.

If Lululemon ultimately succeeds on certain claims, it could seek injunctive relief.

An injunction is a court order requiring a party to stop specific conduct. In the context of this lawsuit, an injunction could potentially require Costco to:

Stop selling certain products
Modify product designs
Change branding or product names
Remove allegedly infringing features
Take corrective actions regarding marketing materials

Whether such relief would be granted depends on future court rulings or settlement terms. No final determination has been made.

For consumers, the practical impact remains limited at this stage because the litigation is ongoing and many questions remain unresolved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Costco still selling the Lululemon dupes?

Potentially, yes. A lawsuit alone does not automatically remove products from store shelves. Unless a product is discontinued voluntarily or a court orders otherwise, retailers may continue selling disputed products while litigation proceeds.

What is Lululemon’s lawsuit against Costco about?

The lawsuit alleges that certain products sold through Costco infringe Lululemon’s intellectual property rights, including design patents, trade dress protections, trademarks, and related rights. Costco disputes those allegations, and the claims remain subject to ongoing litigation.

Has the Lululemon Costco lawsuit settled?

Only partially.

On February 27, 2026, Lululemon, Costco, and Jacques Moret Inc. resolved claims involving certain Danskin and Jockey-branded products. However, multiple claims involving other products remain active, meaning the overall lawsuit has not fully settled.

What is the case number for the Lululemon Costco lawsuit?

The lawsuit is pending as Case No. 2:25-cv-05864 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

When is the next important court deadline?

The next major milestone is the court-ordered mediation deadline of July 31, 2026. Mediation could lead to additional settlements or help determine whether the case continues toward trial.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The litigation discussed remains ongoing, and court filings, rulings, settlement negotiations, and court deadlines may change over time. Readers should consult a qualified attorney for legal advice regarding any specific legal matter.

Conclusion

The Lululemon Costco lawsuit has evolved into one of the most closely watched intellectual property disputes involving retail “dupe” products. What began with a cease-and-desist letter in late 2024 has developed into a significant federal case involving design patents, trademarks, trade dress rights, and unfair competition claims.

The February 2026 settlement involving certain Danskin and Jockey products narrowed the dispute but did not bring the litigation to an end. Several claims involving other products—including the Spyder jacket, Kirkland performance pants, and Hi-Tec outerwear—remain unresolved.

With court-ordered mediation scheduled by July 31, 2026, the coming months may prove critical in determining whether the parties reach a broader settlement or continue toward trial. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the case is likely to remain an important example of how courts address intellectual property disputes in an era increasingly shaped by social-media-driven dupe culture.

This article will be updated as new court filings, settlements, and public developments become available.