As we enter 2026, we turn our attention to litigation within the fashion, apparel, and beauty industries that is expected to influence the legal and commercial landscape in the year ahead. The cases discussed below raise critical issues, including the extent to which the increasingly popular minimalist aesthetic may be protected under intellectual property law, the legal boundaries of “duping culture” and when competitive practices cross the line into infringement, and the importance of thorough legal due diligence for emerging companies seeking to navigate complex markets. In addition to examining the cases poised to shape 2026, we provide updates on select matters from 2025 that continue to establish significant precedent and offer insights into ongoing industry trends.
WHOOP, Inc. v. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-12690 (D. Mass)
Whoop, Inc., a Boston-based wearable technology company, sued Shenzhen Lexqi, a Chinese manufacturer of wearable technology devices for making and selling knockoffs of its wearable fitness tracker.1 The Complaint was filed in Massachusetts federal court, in which Whoop sued for trade dress, unfair competition, and false designation or origin under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement).2 This case is based on Shenzhen’s online sales of wearable fitness trackers on Amazon under names such as “SGJIK” and “EGQINR”.3 Wearable fitness trackers such as watches have been gaining popularity in recent years, but Whoop claims to be distinct in its distinctive minimalist strap-and-clasp screenless design. Whoop is seeking to protect elements of its design such as the U-shaped clasp mechanism, the hinged sides, the rectangular sensor module, and the strap and sensor configuration.4 This will require Whoop to show that its minimalist design is both meaningfully distinctive from other designs in the wearable tech space and non-functional. This begs the question — is such minimalist design sufficient to warrant trade dress protection? Whoop argues that the copied design is a source identifier and misleads consumers into thinking that they are buying Whoop products, which as a result, tarnishes the brand’s reputation for quality. Whoop is seeking monetary damages, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief to prevent future sales.5
This case is receiving a lot of attention, as it highlights service of process issues with a foreign defendant. Further, it emphasizes the increasing tension between U.S. brands and foreign manufacturers regarding intellectual property protection. As the “minimalist aesthetic” trend continues, this case will serve as an important precedent for whether minimalism should receive trade dress protection.
Lululemon USA Inc v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-05864 (C.D. Cal.) 6
In the summer of 2025, Lululemon USA Inc., a notorious athletic apparel company, sued Costco Wholesale Corp., accusing the multinational membership-only warehouse club of selling unauthorized “dupes” of its bestselling athleticwear.7 Specifically, Lululemon stated that Costco’s Kirkland brand replicas of Lululemon’s trademarked SCUBA hoodies, DEFINE jackets, and ABC pants constitute trademark and trade-dress infringement, arguing that the items were so visually similar that they posed a risk of confusion to consumers.8 Lululemon further alleges that the dupes violate their US.. Design Patents, which protect ornamental aspects of their clothing such as the stitching in the DEFINE Jacket and aspects of their SCUBA hoodie.9 As a result, Lululemon is claiming that Costco has diluted their trademarks and confused customers.10 Therefore, Lululemon has sued in the US District Court for the Central District of California on June 27, 2025, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and destruction of the infringing inventory.11 Lululemon’s Complaint states that through these dupes, Costco has chosen to “copy rather than compete” which has ultimately damaged Lululemon’s “hard-earned reputation and immense goodwill” which has been fostered as a result of their high quality, innovation, and extensive marketing.12
“Dupe culture”, or the low-cost lookalike products that mimic a premium original, has been on the rise; and is specifically active in the beauty and fashion space.13 As “dupe culture” continues to gain popularity through social media, certain companies such as Lululemon have been negatively impacted more than others. In fact, there is a viral “Lululemon Dupes” hashtag circulating throughout social media platforms such as Tiktok and Instagram, as consumers show off products that resemble Lululemon’s signature pieces at significant discounts.
Further, The Washington Post has published multiple articles highlighting the similarities between Lululemon and Costco apparel. One article was titled “Is That Hoodie a Lululemon or a Costco Dupe? No One Has to Know But You” and the other “Are These $20 Costco Pants a Lululemon Dupe? We Investigated.” While knockoff versions of products used to be frowned upon, Gen Z consumers have embraced the more accessible and affordable versions of products and have taken their favorite “dupes” to social media platforms to spread the word.14 As a result, the aspirational quality of Lululemon’s apparel is being diluted, and the company has lost some of their market share to knockoff versions. “Dupe culture” does not only hurt established brands, but it comes with ethical production issues as well. Many dupes come from fast fashion brands with unethical labor practices. It is reported that 93% of fast fashion brands underpay their workers and outsource production to cut expenses, which is why these dupes can be so affordable.15
As “duping” continues to become more popular, this case will serve as an important precedent in the fashion industry for testing the line between competition and intellectual property infringement, and how far “duping” can go.
Palas v. Le Domaine, Case No. 2:25-cv-11953-AB-PVC (C.D. Cal.)
Brandon Palas, owner, and founder of “Beau D.,” skincare line for men, initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against French company, Le Domaine, Brad Pitt’s luxury skincare line for men. The December 18, 2025 complaint alleges that Palas registered the Beau D. mark with the USPTO in connection with various cosmetic products in International Class 3 based on continuous use since December 2020. While Pitt’s skincare line for men was initially named “Le Domaine,” it underwent rebranding as recently as 2022 when it obtained a federal registration for the newly minted name for the product line, “Beau Domaine” in connection with cosmetic preparations, non-medicated body and face care preparations, hair care preparations and essential oils in 2024. Palas alleges that, because he was first to use the Beau D. mark in connection with skincare, and because the Beau Domaine mark incorporates 100% of Palas’s mark, Le Domaine’s mark necessarily causes a likelihood of confusion. Palas asserted claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and common law unfair competition.
The lawsuit allegedly comes after failed attempts to settle the trademark dispute. Palas allegedly offered Le Domaine three options: that Le Domaine rebrands, that it enters into a co-existing agreement with Palas, or that it funds Palas’s rebranding efforts.16
The dispute underscores a key lesson: trademark clearance and legal due diligence are essential, even for well-funded, celebrity-backed brands. In Le Domaine’s case, the company may have chosen to move forward with its rebrand before fully resolving potential conflicts with the Beau D. mark — a decision that may have seemed risk-averse in one sense, but nonetheless carried significant legal consequences. For emerging businesses, bypassing or rushing these early legal steps can be particularly costly, resulting in litigation, forced rebranding mid-launch, and the erosion of substantial investments in packaging, marketing assets, and promotional campaigns. Reliance on the USPTO to identify potentially conflicting marks is not a reliable substitute for thorough clearance, as demonstrated here by the registration of the “Beau Domaine” mark despite the absence of any cited conflicting marks during prosecution.
Richemont Int’l SA, et al., v. Malidani Jewelry Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-06284-LAP (S.D.N.Y.)
On July 30, 2025, Richemont International SA, joined by its flagship luxury maisons Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Malidani Jewelry Corp. The complaint alleges counterfeiting, trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, design patent infringement, and related state law claims.
The plaintiffs assert that Malidani has been selling jewelry pieces that are substantially similar to several protected world famous designs: the Cartier LOVE collection in bracelets, rings, and earrings; the Cartier Juste un Clou collection for bracelets and other jewelry; and Van Cleef’s Alhambra Guilloche design – a signature quatrefoil ornament with beaded outer edges and a flat inner portion–protected by trade dress and design patents.
According to the complaint, Richemont representatives visited Malidani’s store and found bracelets, rings, and pendants mimicking these designs, priced between $1,500 and $9,000, with many in the $2,800–$6,000 range. In one instance, a store representative allegedly encouraged the plaintiffs’ agent to visit a Cartier boutique to compare prices and confirm that the differences are undetectable.
Based on the docket, no scheduling order has been entered, but a protective order was filed on November 6, 2025, seemingly in connection with limited discovery focused on the defendant’s accounting which could suggest an upcoming settlement.
This litigation stands out because it involves alleged counterfeit goods positioned at the higher end of the market with the accused products being priced in the thousands-of-dollar range. The elevated price points and close similarity to Cartier and Van Cleef’s iconic designs appear to create a stronger likelihood of consumer confusion, potentially influencing how courts assess a class of “premium” counterfeits in luxury goods cases. The outcome, if the case proceeds, may shape enforcement strategies for design-heavy brands seeking to protect distinctive trade dress and patented designs from copycat sellers operating in upscale markets.
Sol De Janeiro USA, Inc. et al v. MCoBeauty Pty Ltd et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08862 (S.D.N.Y.)
In another “dupe culture” dispute, beauty brand, Sol de Janeiro, filed suit in 2024 against MCoBeauty, alleging that certain of MCoBeauty’s fragrance mists infringe the trade dress of Sol de Janeiro’s Cheirosa body mist line. Sol de Janeiro also claims that MCoBeauty falsely advertises its products as “smelling exactly like” the original Sol Janeiro line.
The 38-page complaint features numerous side-by-side comparisons of the two brands’ packaging: Sol de Janeiro’s elongated bottles with white caps, numbered names in oval labels, and stylized fonts appear next to MCoBeauty’s similar bottles that mimic these elements. According to Sol de Janeiro, MCoBeauty intentionally adopted its trade dress and similar scents to evoke its original products, even while marketing them as alternatives to the original. In support of its false advertising claim, Sol De Janeiro alleges that the “cheap knock offs” do not “smell exactly the same” because they differ in ingredients, scent intensity, and dissipation rate. The complaint also asserts violations of the FTC Act related to MCoBeauty’s use of influencer endorsements and customer testimonials.
On January 6, 2026, the court granted MCoBeauty leave to file a motion to dismiss. In its January 27, 2026, motion, MCoBeauty contended that Sol de Janeiro is improperly trying to stop lawful “dupe” competition. Specifically, the defendant argued that (i) Sol de Janeiro lacked Article III standing because it had not shown lost sales or reputational injury and has recently touted exceptional growth and revenue increases; (ii) Sol de Janeiro’s false advertising claims fail to satisfy the elements required by the Lanham Act because third parties other than MCoBeauty made the statements, the statements were subjective opinions or puffery, and Sol de Janeiro has not shown how these statements caused harm; (iii) the plaintiff’s New York General Business Law § 349 claim should fail because Sol de Janeiro did not allege harm to the public as the statute requires; and (iv) Sol de Janeiro’s trade dress infringement claim should be dismissed for failing to provide (1) a sufficiently specific description of its dress, (2) facts showing how consumers link the described dress elements to Sol de Janeiro, and (3) facts demonstrating the likelihood of confusion created by the defendant. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants MCoBeauty Pty Ltd and MCoBeauty, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, Sol D\de Janeiro USA, Inc. v. MCoBeauty Pty Ltd et al., No. 1:24 ‑cv ‑08862 ‑ER (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2026), ECF No. 49.
This case underscores the tension between “dupe” products and fair use in comparative advertising: how far can a competitor go in imitating the look and feel of a product to draw a direct comparison, while clearly stating it is not the original? The court’s eventual ruling may offer important guidance for brands navigating this area.
Whaleco Inc. v. Shein Technology LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03706-TJK (D.D.C.) and Roadget Business PTE. Ltd. v. PDD Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02402-TJK (D.D.C.)
The ongoing legal disputes in the ultra-fast fashion market between rivals Temu and Shein appear to be nowhere near resolution. Â鶹´«Ă˝ reported on these cross lawsuits last year (linked here), but recent rulings in both cases have clarified which claims will shape the next phase of litigation.
Temu, operated by Whaleco Inc., entered the U.S. market in 2022 and quickly gained traction with a gamified shopping experience and aggressive low pricing. In December 2023, it sued Shein and its parent company, alleging an extensive campaign to stifle Temu’s growth. Temu accused Shein of weaponizing U.S. intellectual property law through unfounded copyright takedown notices, blocking Temu’s access to specialized Chinese suppliers, misappropriating commercial and financial data, and copying core aspects of Temu’s online platform and customer-engagement strategies.
On September 30, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on Shein’s motions to dismiss, significantly narrowing the case while leaving several claims intact. The court dismissed Temu’s trade secret misappropriation, antitrust, tortious interference, and abuse-of process claims and removed Shein’s foreign parent from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
However, five central claims survived against Shein itself, keeping the litigation very much alive. Specifically, the case will proceed with Temu’s DMCA claims under Section 512, copyright infringement of Temu’s gamified promotions, fraud on the copyright office, trade dress infringement of Temu’s arcade style online shopping experience characterized by vibrant orange themes and arcade game style graphics, and unfair competition.
In August 2024, while Shein’s motion to dismiss was pending in Temu’s lawsuit, Shein filed its own lawsuit against Temu, asserting a sweeping set of federal and state law claims including trade secret misappropriation, multiple forms of copyright and trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, false advertising, and product disparagement.
On January 7, 2026, the court issued its ruling on Temu’s motion to dismiss, removing several claims but leaving others standing. Specifically, the court dismissed Shein’s trademark dilution claim for failure to sufficiently plead the fame requirement and dismissed the product disparagement claim. Shein’s cross lawsuit will proceed on its copyright infringement claims, trade secret misappropriation claims, counterfeit and trademark infringement claims, as well as its unfair competition and false advertising claims.
Shein’s false advertising claims are rooted in allegations that Temu distributed influencer guidelines instructing them to claim, falsely, that Temu’s products are cheaper and of far better quality than Shein’s. Influencer posts allegedly followed these instructions. While a close call, the court found the claim plausible at this stage. On contributory false advertising, the court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent (and noted Second Circuit recognition) to hold such a claim viable.
With both cases advancing on important IP and competitive conduct claims, the dispute exemplifies how rivalry in the online, ultra-fast fashion market has moved beyond simple price competition and can implicate foreign supply chain competition, and wars in online marketing.
Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 130 F.4th 948 (Fed. Cir.)
Lashify, Inc. is an American company that sells artificial eyelash extensions and related accessories. While Lashify designs and sells its products in the United States, their products are manufactured abroad. Lashify owns U.S. utility and design patents, and in 2021, the company filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Inv. No. 337-TA-1226, alleging that other importers of false eyelashes had infringed upon such patents. The ITC determined that while respondents infringed, Lashify had failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement of Section 337; which provides relief against infringing imports “only if an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by the patent…exists or is in the process of being established.” This requirement consists of two prongs—1) the “economic prong” which demands a showing of an industry and 2) the “technical” prong which shows a relation to the patented articles. The Commission determined that Lashify failed to satisfy the economic prong entirely due to its purported failure to establish significant employment and labor capital by its warehouse, quality control, distribution, and sales and marketing expenses. Rather, the Commission determined that these expenses were insufficient, standing alone, because there were no additional steps required to make Lashify’s products saleable upon arriving in the U.S. and the quality control measures were no more than that of a normal importer. The Commission also determined that Lashify only satisfied the technical prong for two out of three of the asserted patents. Lashify appealed these findings to the Federal Circuit along with one of the ALJ’s claim constructions.
The Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s determination that Lashify’s warehouse, quality control, distribution, sales, and marketing expenses should be insufficient, standing alone, and remanded for a redetermination of the economic prong. In combing through the history of Section 337(a)(3) (B) and its amendments, the Federal Circuit held that the Commission’s decision to exclude Lashify’s expenses in the employment and labor capital analysis was based on an incorrect interpretation of the statute and wholly contrary to its language. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s findings that one of Lashify’s patents had failed to satisfy the technical prong and affirmed the ALJ’s claim construction.
The Lashify case is significant because it squarely addresses the scope of the “economic prong” of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337. The Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Section 337(a)(3)(B) can be viewed as a signal to companies whose manufacturing occurs primarily abroad but whose operational infrastructure is located in the United States, and who may have hesitated to initiate an ITC investigation for fear of failing to meet the economic prong threshold. On remand, the Commission’s treatment of Lashify’s expenditures will likely serve as either a roadmap or a cautionary tale for similarly situated import-dependent businesses seeking to use Section 337 to protect their intellectual property in the coming years. Given the increasing globalization of supply chains, the final resolution of Lashify has the potential to influence patent-related trade enforcement strategy far beyond the beauty products sector.
- https://www.thefashionlaw.com/looking-ahead-the-cases-set-to-shape-retail-in-2026/#:~:text=WHOOP%2C%20Inc.&text=At%20 the%20core%20of%20the,to%20all%20of%20our%20content.
- https://www.thefashionlaw.com/looking-ahead-the-cases-set-to-shape-retail-in-2026/#:~:text=WHOOP%2C%20Inc.&text=At%20 the%20core%20of%20the,to%20all%20of%20our%20content.
- https://www.thefashionlaw.com/looking-ahead-the-cases-set-to-shape-retail-in-2026/#:~:text=WHOOP%2C%20Inc.&text=At%20 the%20core%20of%20the,to%20all%20of%20our%20content.
- https://brionraffoul.com/2025/trademarks/the-cost-of-a-dupe-lululemons-lawsuit-the-power-of-ip[1]protection/#:~:text=Lululemon%20USA%20Inc.,of%20intellectual%20property%20(IP).
- https://brionraffoul.com/2025/trademarks/the-cost-of-a-dupe-lululemons-lawsuit-the-power-of-ip-protection/#:~:text=Lululemon%20USA%20Inc.,of%20intellectual%20property%20(IP).
- https://www.nrfbigshoweurope.com/en/industry-trends/the-rise-of-dupe#:~:text=The%20popularity%20of%20dupes%20 is,accessing%20desirable%20aesthetics%20or%20functionality.
