Dupes have gone mainstream: in 2026, dupes are less about copying luxury logos, and centered more on mainstream producers copying recognizable design features.
In the past few years, dupe culture has been thriving on TikTok videos and Reddit threads, where lookalikes were framed as affordable options rather than legal infringements. But that line has started to blur. What once looked like user-circulated internet trends is now showing up in mainstream retail, with large sellers offering products that are openly modeled after more visible brands. That shift matters because once the “dupe” moves from commentary to commercial strategy, the legal analysis changes with it.
Lululemon v. Costco is one of the clearest recent examples. In June 2025, Lululemon sued Costco in federal court in California, alleging that Costco sold lower-priced apparel that copied the look of several of Lululemon’s well-known products, including popular items like Scuba hoodies and Define jackets. Lululemon’s claims include trade dress and design patent theories, and the company is seeking damages as well as an order blocking further sales of the accused products.
Visual Cues Matter
Many of today’s lookalike products do not rely on copying the brand name itself. They rely on copying the visual cues that consumers have already learned to recognize: silhouette, seam placement, proportions, pocket structure, zip details, overall shape, and the broader look of the product. That is why this case resonates so strongly for retail and consumer product companies. It is not just about logos anymore; it’s about product design likeness.
This shift also implicates changes in legal enforcement. When the copying happens in the product itself, not just in the name attached to it, trade dress and design patents can become some of the strongest tools in a brand’s arsenal.
Trade Dress is About What the Market Has Learned to Recognize
Trade dress can protect the overall look and feel of a product or packaging when that look has come to signify the brand.
That sounds simple, but in practice it requires real discipline. A brand needs to show that the design features are distinctive, used consistently, and recognized by consumers as identifying one source rather than just reflecting a trend. In other words, trade dress is not a shortcut. It works best when a company has been deliberate about how it builds recognition around a product over time.
That is one reason dupe disputes are so difficult: the “duper” will often claim that the design is functional, common, trend-driven, or too generic to belong to any one brand. A brand seeking to assert trade dress must be ready to explain what elements are actually distinctive, and why consumers associate those features with it.
Design Patents vs. Trade Dress
Design patents can be especially useful in this space because they protect the ornamental appearance shown in the patent drawings, regardless of whether consumers know the patent exists.
In the Lululemon case, Lululemon alleged that Costco’s products replicate patented and trademarked designs. That layered approach is notable. It suggests Lululemon is not relying on a single theory of harm, but rather is using multiple forms of legal protection to push back against imitation.
For brands, this is an important lesson. Trade dress and design patents are not interchangeable. They solve different problems. A design patent can offer a cleaner path when the protected design has been captured early. Trade dress can become powerful when the market has come to recognize a broader visual identity over time. The strongest product companies often need to think about both.
The Real Mistake is Time
Many brands spend years building recognition into a product without ever clearly documenting what makes that product distinctive from a legal standpoint. Then a copycat appears, and the company is forced to argue backward. It knows the design matters, and it knows consumers recognize it. But the protection strategy was never built to match the commercial reality.
This is where many businesses lose time and leverage.
If a product’s shape, configuration, detailing, or presentation is helping drive recognition in the market, these elements should be identified early. The legal team should know what features matter. The business should think carefully about whether those features belong in design patent filings, whether they are being used consistently enough to support future trade dress arguments, and whether internal records actually reflect the distinctiveness story the brand may someday need to tell.
The Minx Law Perspective
What Lululemon v. Costco signals is fairly straightforward: the dupe conversation is maturing.
Dupes are no longer just about internet language or whether consumers understand they are buying a cheaper version. Instead, the discussion should be centered on whether brands have real legal tools to protect the visual features that carry recognition and market value.
