Aren't all yoga pants pretty much the same?

In late June, Lululemon filed a law suit against Costco, claiming that their company, under its Kirkland brand, is selling items that look an awful like Lululemon (overpriced, snob-appeal) athleisure.

A while back, Lululemon was in the news for not carrying anything above size 10 or 12, as they didn't want any big gals working out in the gym or just strolling around town representing their brand. Apparently they came around and started making larger sizes, but this so put me off them that, even if I were going to pay $120 for a pair of workout pants, I'd have found them somewhere else. And then I would have kept looking for something a lot cheaper.

Because who wants to overpay for a commodity? Yes, I realize there may be quality differences between Lululemon and Amazon. But there's not likely to be a $100 "quality" differential. When you buy Lululemon, you're buying the brand. And the bragging rights, if you're an 11-year-old girl who wants/needs/has indulgent-enough parents to be wearing the "it brand." (Of course, I have no idea what today's "it brand" is for 11 year-olds, nor do I want to know.)

Anyway, in its suit against Kirkland, Lulu isn't that concerned about yoga pants. Their claim is that Kirkland is selling knockoffs of some of little Lulu's hoodies, sweatshirts, jackets, and something called ABC pants, which look to me like standard issue 5-pocket jeans or chinos. But what do I know? (In this particular arena: absolutely nothing.)

Lululemon is also 

'Some customers incorrectly believe these infringing products are authentic Lululemon apparel while still other customers specifically purchase the infringing products because they are difficult to distinguish from authentic Lululemon products, particularly for downstream purchasers or observers,' the 49-page lawsuit states. (Source: Daily Mail)

I'm guessing that in legalese, "downstream purchasers or observers" means someone purchasing or observing these items someplace other than from Lululemon. But to me, it sure sounds more like "loser downsiders who can't afford our shit but who are brand-conscious Lululemon wannabes who can be duped into thinking they're getting the real deal for cheap." But what do I know? (In this particular arena: absolutely nothing.)

Hmmmm. How much time do I have left to finish this post and head out to T. J. Maxx and see if they have any deeply discounted, but not-duped, Eileen Fisher clothing? I'll have to look at my Rolex which, by the way, I bought for $10.99 from a very nice street vendor outside of Penn Station the last time I was in NYC. Looks great, and the time is correct twice a day!

In a sense, you can't blame Lulu for trying. Its bottomline is being whipsawed by the Trump tariff erratica and "concerns about an economic downturn." So, they're out to cease and desist (and get a few bucks out of) Costco. And to institute some 'strategic price increases,' I guess assuming that their core consumers are such ardent fans they won't notice if the prices go even higher. Or, if they notice, their demand is inelastic. Sort of like mine for cherries. Cherries, which I consume a lot of in season, are pretty much the only item where the price actually registers with me. But $3.99, $4.99, $5.99, $6.99 a pound? What the hell? Life - and the cherry season - are short. And it's not as if I'm paying $128 for a pair of yoga pants.

(Lulu is also going after Costco for cribbing its color "Tidewater Teal," which looks pretty close to the color of Fenway Park's Green Monster, which is being used on a ton of Red Sox gear this year. Maybe the Fenway Group shoud so the Lululemon bastards.)

Overall, I'm guessing that Costco is sufficiently savvy that there are small, nuanced differences between their gear and Lulu's. And that if a man - or a brand-conscious consumer - on a galloping course couldn't tell the difference, well, that's just fine. 

Meanwhile, Forbes has weighed in on the likelihood of Lululemon prevailing in this case.

Dozens of successful brands have sued over the increasing production of dupes in the last several years, but proving a product was copied isn’t enough to win—the original producer must also show that the copycat product could actually “dupe” customers into believing the knockoffs are the real thing.

The onus of proving the copycat product actually confused customers and impacted the original manufacturer’s business falls on the originating company, Karl Zielaznicki, trademark lawyer at Troutman Pepper Locke in New York, told Forbes, and it’s very hard to prove: “Customers often know that they aren’t buying a $5,000 watch for $100… They know it’s a different, dupe product,” he said. (Source: Forbes)

Hey, wait just a darned minute. You telling me that my $10.99 watch isn't a Rolex? Say it ain't so!!!