The internet loves a dupe. But some of the most coveted fashion pieces come at a cost, so naturally, people are always hunting for the next best thing — something a little easier on their wallet. But some brands are taking steps to make it harder for people to find these copycats.
In a plot twist pulled straight from TikTok, Lululemon trademarked “Lululemon Dupe” — and now Aritzia is following suit, trying to own not just their designs, but the language people use around them. This isn’t about knockoffs anymore — it’s about who controls the name of the game.
What Lululemon Did — And Why It’s Strategic
Last year, Lululemon quietly filed a U.S. trademark for Lululemon Dupe. The trademark is registered in Class 35, which covers services like retail, advertising, and online marketing — not actual clothing (Lexology).
In other words, the brand isn’t claiming ownership over leggings or logos — it’s staking a claim on the language around imitation. This trademark isn’t saying “you can’t make leggings that look like ours”; it’s saying other companies can’t use the term “Lululemon Dupe” to sell them. Essentially, it targets the marketing machine behind trending dupes, not the products themselves. Think of it like cutting off the oxygen instead of putting out the fire — and honestly? It’s kind of genius.
Lululemon is often considered the gold standard in activewear, so naturally, other brands try to replicate their success. While companies will still make copycat products, this legal move makes it harder for those products to reach Lululemon’s customer base.
Aritzia Wants In
After Lululemon’s trademark went through, Aritzia decided to play their own hand. In March, the brand filed for Aritzia Dupe. Unlike Lululemon’s Class 35-focused filing, Aritzia’s application covers clothing, accessories, footwear, and retail services (Canadian Trademark Office).
This isn’t about selling merch that says “Aritzia Dupe” — it’s about commercially policing the phrase, especially on TikTok Shop, Amazon storefronts, and third-party retailers pushing “looks like The Effortless Pant, but from Walmart!” Aritzia is at a point in its growth where dupe content is a genuine threat: TikToks featuring $15 Effortless Pant lookalikes get millions of views weekly. Unlike Lululemon’s specialized technical fabrics, Aritzia’s clean, minimal basics are easier for mass retailers to replicate.
It’s worth noting that Aritzia itself creates more accessible versions of high-end pieces.
now, this mui mui design isn’t anything particularly proprietary, and whether or not the Aritzia designers pulled inspiration from the mui mui design i could not tell you. but positioning themselves as accessible luxury designer dupes that are above shein quality is the exact kind of thing aritzia’s customer base gravitates towards.
so why are brands so obsesses with this four letter word?
trademarking dupe language isn’t about the clothes, it’s about search visibility, affiliate marketing control, protecting the brand story, and setting precedent. when someone googles ‘lululemon dupe’ the brand wants to control what comes up. affiliate marketing is huge sales for these brands, and they’re seeing some of those sales go around them rather than through them. if you are lululemon or aritzia, you don’t want to see your brand reduced to the expensive version of something you can get for $12, and this trademark strategy is a quiet way to grab control of the narrative.
this is all to say, the language of fashion is becoming a part of brand strategy in a big way. dupes have become almost their own genre of content online and feelings about this legal move are mixed. dupes exist because the original products aren’t necessarily affordable for everyone, but does that mean we are entitled to a cheaper version? are dupes just the free market at work? there is a very real conversation to be had about accessibility, pricing, and who get’s to dictate fashion language, the companies, or the community.
What’s going on here isn’t just another IP fight — it’s a culture war. By claiming ownership over “dupe,” Lululemon and Aritzia are trying to regulate how creators talk, sell, and link to imitation fashion. Influencers who built their audience around “cheap versions of the luxe stuff” could suddenly find themselves navigating legal landmines.
And it’s not just about policing; it’s about capitalizing. If a brand owns “Brand + Dupe”, they can influence search traffic, affiliate links, and even product listing language. As one Bloomberg Law commentator put it, this move signals that “brands must shape the narrative” around imitation — not just defend themselves from it. Bloomberg Law
But it’s not a guaranteed win. If Aritzia’s “DUPE” trademark is rejected or narrowed, it could backfire — or worse, become a symbolic but practically weak gesture. Either way, the fight over language may define how the next generation of dupe culture evolves.
it’s hard to say whether these trademarks will hold up. if the brands don’t actively use the trademarks they could lose them. they also cannot infringe on free speech, so you’re free to post a video saying ‘Aritzia Dupe’ so long as it’s not an affiliate post. so the dupe police aren’t likely to show up in your tik tok comments section, but the brands duping these products might need to make major changes to their marketing strategy.
We’re entering a new phase where brands stop ignoring dupe culture and start participating in it, controlling it, or capitalizing on it.
Trademarking “dupe” is step one.
Expect to see:
- More brands filing similar trademarks
- More creators shifting to language like “similar to,” “inspired by,” or “same vibe as”
- Platforms tightening up how “dupe” appears in search results and product titles
This is fashion’s version of a culture war — played out through trademark filings and SEO.
Dupe culture is wildly popular in the TikTok era. But it’s also a serious threat to certain brands — especially the ones whose value comes from fabric innovation, fit, or aesthetic identity.
Lululemon trademarking “Lululemon Dupe” was the first volley.
Aritzia filing for “Aritzia Dupe” was the confirmation: this is officially a trend.
And if the influencer economy made dupe culture what it is today, brands are now trying to write themselves into that narrative. do you think this branding move could backfire in the court of public opinion?
Lexology: Lululemon’s “LULULEMON DUPE” trademark
Canadian Trademark Office: Aritzia Dupe
Leave a Reply