Owning the dupe culture: The evolving practice in trademark registration

Vrinda Harmilapi
19 hours ago
5 min read

Introduction

Lululemon Athletica Inc. (hereafter “Lululemon”) has taken an unusual yet strategic step by registering the mark "LULULEMON DUPE" in the United States, which covers retail and advertising services related to clothes, footwear, yoga, and athletic accessories.^[1] This registrational move comes at a time when “dupe culture” is a trend.

This article examines what these kinds of registrations reveal about evolving brand-protection strategies and their potential implications in India’s fast-growing fashion and e-commerce sectors.

Understanding ‘Dupe’ Culture

The term ‘dupe’, is derived from the word “duplicate”, which refers to a product that is not the original article of a brand, but which replicates or strongly resembles the appearance, design aesthetic, or perceived function of the high-end item, often at a much lower price.^[2] A key distinction between the two is that a “dupe” is not necessarily a counterfeit (i.e., does not bear the logo), but rather a look-alike or inspired alternative.

Influencers are often seen using hashtags like ‘#BrandNameDupes’ to compare low-cost alternatives to high-end products, which has increased the prevalence of the dupe culture in today's digital environment. This is becoming more and more popular due to consumers' need for affordable, fashionable, high-quality products, often spurred by social media virality. It's also interesting to note that even well-known companies are now taking part in this movement.^[3] For instance, partnerships like Mugler x H&M^[4] make designer aesthetics more accessible, while brands like OLAPLEX released a fictitious product called, “Oladupé” to increase awareness about the dupe culture.^[5]

Analyzing Lululemon’s Trademark Strategy

At first glance, registering an expression like "LULULEMON DUPE" appears counterintuitive. Why would a brand want to be associated with its imitation? However, from a strategic IP standpoint, this move serves several goals for Lululemon and may impact how global companies respond to dupe culture.

Lululemon filed an application to register "LULULEMON DUPE" (on a proposed to be used basis) in December 2024. However, the application was revised under § 44(e), based on an earlier registration in Benelux. As a result, on October 21, 2025, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted registration for the mark “LULULEMON DUPE”.^[6]

It is speculated that Lululemon’s focus on countering knockoffs reached a peak earlier this year when the Company filed a lawsuit against Costco for allegedly selling counterfeit versions of its Scuba hoodies, sweatshirts, jackets, and ABC pants.^[7] While the authorities cannot directly prevent retailers like Costco from producing or selling dupes, the Company decided to take a more proactive approach. The said trademark application shows how brands are adapting their intellectual property strategies by turning a consumer-driven term like “dupe” into a valuable, exclusive brand asset, and preventing other third parties from gaining undue advantage. I understand that by registering a term that is increasingly used by consumers and third-parties (“dupe”), the brand may seek to establish control over how the term is used commercially with itself, thereby avoiding confusion or dilution.

This move of turning a potential weakness into an advantage, has been dubbed as “brand jujitsu”. ^[8] Instead of dealing with every entity engaged in imitation products over and again, the company has used the "dupe" discourse to its advantage, underlying: Yes, there are dupes, but here's the original. ‘Even in 2023, the brand’s “dupe swap" pop-up in Los Angeles offered buyers to trade in imitation Align leggings for legitimate ones, attracting over thousands of guests, half of whom were their first time customers.’^[9]

This move curbs copies that are being sold under the label “dupe”, thereby causing consumer confusion and trading on the reputation and hard work of the brand. It gives Lululemon the right to challenge the use of the said term by unauthorized sellers or influencers, who use the phrase to promote non-Lululemon products. It transforms a viral but unregulated phrase into a controlled asset, enabling Lululemon to demand takedowns, block unauthorized listings, and maintain clarity between authentic and imitation products. The trademark allows Lululemon to signal product authenticity more effectively and protect its rights.

From another viewpoint, some commentators suggest that the said registration is more about enforcement advantage than it is about using the mark in commerce.^[10] For the reasons outlined above, Lululemon's approach symbolizes a transition from reactive enforcement to proactive ownership, transforming social-media language from a liability into a tool.

Implications for Trademark Databases and IP Practice

The phrase ‘Lululemon dupe’ is, by nature, descriptive. Giving trademark protection for terms like "dupe," which have grown commonplace online, particularly in influencer marketing and product evaluations, runs the risk of overloading the trademark register with marks derived from social media trends rather than conventional brand names. Offices will have to determine if applications like "brand name inspired" or "brand name dupe" actually serve as trademarks or are merely attempts to assert ownership over widely used cultural expressions. Additionally, it makes it difficult to distinguish between trademark infringement and reasonable commentary, satire, or comparative advertising. Practically, companies will also need to demonstrate how such marks are used in real commercial activity, particularly in the United States where an applicant is required to show proof of use.

In India, where dupe culture is omnipresent across platforms like Myntra, Meesho, and businesses on Instagram, this trademark move serves as both a caution and an inspiration. Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 lays down absolute grounds for refusal of registration of a mark, including concerns on distinctiveness and non-descriptiveness. Consequently, mark such as “XYZ Dupe” is likely to face an objection under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Act, unless the Applicant is able to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness, or prove that the mark is capable of distinguishing the Applicant’s goods and services from others. At the same time, if an influencer markets a product as a “dupe” while using a brand’s name or logo in a way that implies endorsement, it could trigger claims of passing off or infringement. Therefore, while this tactic allows brands to assert greater control over their mark and protect their brand identity, it also risks curbing creativity and cultural practices. Many consumers rely on dupes for functionality and affordability. For example, the popular Chandni Chowk wedding lehengas that echo designer styles, highlighting that dupe culture often supports inclusivity and healthy competition. The line between creative inspiration, accessible alternatives, and infringement is thin, and overly broad enforcement could inadvertently stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and restrict cultural expression in the marketplace.

Conclusion

With the trademark "LULULEMON DUPE", Lululemon has done more than just protect its products; it has regained discourse around the ‘dupe culture’. This action is indicative of a new strategy for brand protection that takes into account social media, viral culture, and language power. The Dupe culture, which is driven by accessibility and affordability, blurs the line between harmless imitation and potential brand threat. While the legal enforceability and commercial impact of such marks remain to be seen, this example highlights how intellectual property strategies are evolving in response to digital marketplaces and globally connected consumers.