Yoga Apparel Giant Lululemon Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Costco

Recently, renowned yoga apparel brand Lululemon officially filed a lawsuit against retail giant Costco in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging trademark and trade dress infringements, among other claims.

I. Case Overview

Plaintiffs: Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. and Lululemon USA, Inc.
Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

II. Lululemon's Claims

• Permanent Injunction: Prohibiting Costco from manufacturing, selling, or importing any infringing products.

• Profit Disgorgement and Damages: Demanding Costco surrender all profits obtained through infringement and pay compensatory damages.

• Destruction of Infringing Inventory: Requesting Costco destroy all infringing products in inventory.

• Attorney's Fees: Seeking reimbursement of all litigation costs from Costco.

• Jury Trial: Explicitly requesting a jury trial.

III. Primary Infringing Products and Designs

This lawsuit targets several key Lululemon products and trademarks, including:

• DEFINE® Yoga Jacket vs. Costco’s Jockey and Spyder women’s yoga jackets;

• SCUBA® Hoodie vs. Costco’s Danskin half-zip series;

• ABC™ Pants vs. Costco’s Kirkland 5-pocket performance pants;

• TIDEWATER TEAL™ Trademark Infringement: Costco allegedly misused Lululemon's registered trademark in its Danskin series products.

IV. Core Allegations

Lululemon accuses Costco of unauthorized copying and sale of products closely resembling its registered trademarks and trade dress, violating the Lanham Act, U.S. patent law, and California state laws. Specific claims include:

• Trade Dress Infringement for DEFINE and SCUBA products;

• Trademark Infringement involving TIDEWATER TEAL and SCUBA marks;

• Trade Dress Infringement for ABC pants;

• False Origin Marking and Unfair Competition;

• Design Patent Infringement.

Lululemon emphasizes that Costco’s actions were intentional, deliberate, and malicious, significantly damaging the brand's reputation and potentially confusing consumers regarding product origins.

This lawsuit is expected to attract significant attention within the apparel retail industry, highlighting the importance of intellectual property compliance to avoid similar disputes.

We will continue to monitor developments in this case. Stay tuned for further updates!