NEW YORK (AP) \u2014 Fashion \u201cdupes,\u201d or less expensive versions of high-end clothing and other accessories, are just about everywhere these days. They\u2019re also drawing some businesses into legal battles.<\/p>\n
In the latest example, Lululemon slapped a lawsuit against Costco<\/a> on Friday, accusing the wholesale club operator of selling lower-priced duplicates of some of its popular athleisure apparel. <\/p>\n Across the retail industry, it\u2019s far from a new phenomenon. But social media is pushing the culture of online dupe shopping to new heights as influencers direct their followers to where they can buy the knockoffs. Want a taste of Herm\u00e8s\u2019 $1,000 fuzzy slippers? Target has a version for $15. Looking for a $2,800 price Bottega Veneta hobo bag? There\u2019s a version for $99 on online clothing and accessories upstart Quince, which has become a go-to for fashionistas. <\/p>\n It\u2019s not even the first time Lululemon has encountered what it says are knockoffs of its clothing, which often carry steep price tags of over $100 each for leggings and sporty zip-ups. Without specifying additional sellers beyond Costco in Friday\u2019s complaint, Lululemon noted that a handful companies have \u201creplicated or copied\u201d its apparel to sell cheaper offerings \u2014 including those popularized online through hashtags like \u201cLululemonDupes\u201d on TikTok<\/a> and other social media platforms.<\/p>\n Dupes aren\u2019t new<\/p>\n For years, companies have rolled out a range of cheaper option for consumers to buy instead of pricey name-brands or designer labels \u2014 often through retailers\u2019 house or generic brands. Unlike more direct copies of the product with an unauthorized trademark or logo of a patented brand, \u201cpure\u201d dupes that just resemble certain features are generally legitimate. They can even spark awareness of the original items. <\/p>\n But the rising frenzy for dupes, particularly in the fashion space, signals that many shoppers want a taste of luxury, but no longer want to pay for (or care about) getting the real thing.<\/p>\n Late last year, for example, discount chain Walmart created a buzz when it started selling a leather bag online that resembled Herm\u00e8s\u2019 coveted Birkin bag.<\/a> The $78 item \u2014 sold by Kamugo, which doesn\u2019t appear to have its own website \u2014 was a fraction of the price of the original, which goes from $9,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars on resale and auction sites. Influencers labeled the leather bag a \u201cwirkin.\u201d Other suppliers including BESTSPR, YMTQ and Judy were listed on Walmart\u2019s site selling similar totes.<\/p>\n While popular among shoppers, these kind of look-alikes can frustrate the targeted companies. Following the viral fame of the \u201cwirkin,\u201d Herm\u00e8s Executive Chairman Axel Dumas shared his annoyance, for example.<\/p>\n \u201cMaking a copy like this is quite detestable,\u201d Dumas said in a corporate earnings call in February. Still, he acknowledged that it was \u201cquite touching\u201d to see so many consumers want a bag with the Birkin style \u2014 and that \u201cdifference in quality\u201d was still evident, noting that nobody bought the dupe thinking it was from Herm\u00e8s.<\/p>\n When dupes venture into uncertain legal territory<\/p>\n Alexandra Roberts, a professor of law and media at Northeastern University, said that \u201cthe term \u2018dupe\u2019 itself doesn\u2019t tell us much about legality,\u201d noting the word has also been used to describe more traditional counterfeits.<\/p>\n But overall, dupes can move into shaky legal territory, including copyright and trademark infringement, particularly if a dupe marketer makes false claims about the duplicate or the original.<\/p>\n \u201cWith fashion, in particular, we\u2019re going to get into some thorny questions,\u201d Roberts said. That includes what intellectual property rights exist and how enforceable they are, she explained, and whether there is actual infringement or if a product is just \u201cpositioning itself as a less expensive alternative.\u201d<\/p>\n Often such disputes boil down trademark questions around consumer confusion or patented product designs. Several businesses have already put this to the test, but not always successfully.<\/p>\n In December, for example, Benefit lost a lawsuit in California over E.l.f.’s $6 Lash \u2019N Roll mascara, which is similar to Benefit\u2019s $29 Roller Lash mascara. The judge\u2019s decision was \u201ca resounding win for us,\u201d E.lf. CEO Tarang Amin previously told The Associated Press.<\/p>\n \u201cThe basic reality is we always put our E.l.f. twist on it,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s an E.l.f. product that\u2019s a much better value.\u201d <\/p>\n Lululemon sues Costco<\/p>\n In its lawsuit, Lululemon argued that Costco had \u201cunlawfully traded\u201d on Lululemon\u2019s reputation and that it was suing as part of wider intellectual property enforcement \u201cdirected to retailers who have chosen to copy rather than compete.\u201d<\/p>\n