Lululemon Sues Ross Stores Over 'Lowest-Quality' Knockoff Yoga Pants Ever
Lululemon has hit Ross Stores Inc. and one of its suppliers with a lawsuit claiming that the discount retailer has been selling shabby knockoffs of the company's high-end leggings in stores in California.
June 20, 2019 at 06:30 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Lululemon has hit Ross Stores Inc. and one of its suppliers with a lawsuit claiming that the discount retailer has been selling shabby knockoffs of the company's high-end yoga pants in stores in California.
Vancouver, Canada-based Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. filed suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California bringing claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting as well as state and federal claims of unfair competition against Ross Stores and IOPA Inc., a Los Angeles-based distributor of athletic apparel.
According to the lawsuit, Lululemon representatives bought 20 counterfeit products from Ross-operated dd's DISCOUNTS stores in San Leandro and Hawthorne for $7.99 each.
“Genuine versions of the Lululemon All The Right Places Pant and Fast and Free Tight sell for $128 each,” wrote the company's lawyers at Sideman & Bancroft. “Lululemon analyzed the Counterfeit Products and determined that they were among the lowest-quality counterfeit leggings that Lululemon had ever encountered,” they wrote.
The complaint noted that the alleged counterfeits included Lululemon's trademarked upside-down U seam and tags that said “Designed in Vancouver.”
According to the lawsuit, customers who've purchased the leggings from dd's have taken to the internet to complain about them. The suit cites one instance of what it calls “evidence of actual consumer confusion” where Instagram user @lezlies_closet wrote: “I bought defective LuLuLemon leggings at DD's Discount.” In the video posted to Instagram the user says: “They are originals. Definitely.”
[falcon-embed src="embed_2"]
The complaint cites a separate Instagram user, @thriftnfind_ who wrote: “Wow DD Discount you are selling fake Lululemon.”
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
The suit claims that the defendants were either aware or willfully blind to the fact that the goods they were selling were counterfeits given the low price point and the fact that Lululemon only distributes its products through its own retail and outlet stores, website and in high-end yoga studios, gyms and wellness centers. The company also claims that the “thin, cheap polyester blends” used to make the leggings sold at the Ross Stores locations were a far cry from Lululemon's “smooth, four-way stretch Full-On Luxtreme fabric and Lululemon's Nulux quick-drying, sweat-wicking fabric.”
“The harm to Lululemon's brand and goodwill caused by Defendants' conduct is ongoing, as the negative reviews continue to mount, and confirm the confusion and disappointment caused to consumers due to the inferior quality of the counterfeit 'Lululemon' branded goods sold by Defendants,” the company's lawyers wrote.
Sideman & Bancroft's Zachary Alinder was out of the office Thursday and didn't respond to a message seeking comment.
Representatives of Ross Stores didn't respond to a message.
Reached by phone at his office in Los Angeles, IOPA owner Danny Kian declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Kirkland Litigators and Restructuring Lawyers Partner on Bankruptcy Work
Litigators of the Week: Hitting Walmart With a $100M Verdict in Its Own Backyard
Litigator of the Week: Standing Strong for Under Armour's Trademarks Without Going Overboard Against Upstart Armorina
How a Luxury Designer Made the Case 'Adidas Does Not Own Stripes'
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250