Lululemon’s legal dispute with Costco has reignited discussions about the scope of trademark protection in the athleisure industry. At its core, the conflict centers on whether analogous designs - such as the SCUBA® hoodies and DEFINE® jackets - constitute infringement or simply represent competitive innovation. The case highlights a fundamental principle: trademarks extend beyond logos and words, encompassing the visual elements that define a brand’s identity. Courts have historically acknowledged that color, form, and packaging can function as source identifiers, provided they serve to distinguish a product’s origin. However, the distinction between safeguarding intellectual property and overreach remains complex, particularly when designs straddle the line between originality and replication.
For brands like lululemon, the challenge lies in demonstrating that their designs are sufficiently distinctive to warrant legal action. The U.S. Trademark Office has already raised questions about the functional aspects of certain elements, such as the kangaroo pocket on SCUBA hoodies. If a design is deemed functional - such as a specific fit for athletic wear - it may not qualify for trademark protection. This creates a delicate balance: brands must defend their identity without inadvertently limiting creative expression. The outcome of this case could influence how courts interpret the relationship between design, utility, and consumer perception in the years ahead.
The timing of the lawsuit has also drawn attention. Lululemon’s stock declined sharply following earnings, and the filing occurred shortly after. While the link remains speculative, it underscores the high stakes of trademark disputes. For businesses, the takeaway is clear: proactive monitoring of competitors and precise definitions of source identifiers are essential to protecting intellectual property without stifling innovation.
IP Defender offers a proactive solution by tracking national trademark databases across 50+ countries, including the EU, USA, and Australia. The service enables brands to identify potential conflicts before they escalate, though it does not provide legal counsel. For companies navigating a competitive landscape, early detection and response to infringements represent a strategic advantage.
The resolution of lululemon’s case will hinge on whether courts determine that the design similarities meet the threshold for infringement or dilution. For brands like lululemon, the fight extends beyond protecting their identity - it involves shaping how the law defines intellectual property boundaries in a rapidly evolving market. Proactive strategies, supported by tools like IP Defender, remain critical in an environment where imitation is inevitable.