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
© 2025 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
- 1Perkins Coie Lures Former Longtime Wilson Sonsini Tech Transactions Partner
- 2‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
- 3MoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
- 4Antitrust in Trump 2.0: Expect Gap Filling from State Attorneys General
- 5People in the News—Jan. 22, 2025—Knox McLaughlin, Saxton & Stump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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