Lululemon Athletica v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations



Lululemon Athletica is suing an unidentified number of Chinese-based counterfeiters for allegedly selling knock-off yoga pants and underwear online in Chicago in the USA.

The Lululemon Athletica case, a complaint for trademark infringement, was filed in a Federal Court in the Northern District of Illinois. They based their claims in the action pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)–(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Buy a copy of the Lululemon Athletica case, including declarations, motion for leave, motion for a TRO, and exhibits up to the motion for TRO for $99.

This case, in conjunction with the Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. Liu case, Canada Goose jackets case, and the Decker Outdoors case about Uggs boots serves as a warning that foreign based sellers should not ship goods that may possibly infringe any US trademarks, patents, or copyrights into the USA, especially not Illinois, Texas, New York, or California.

Last month, Canada Goose, the trendy Toronto-based outerwear manufacturer, filed a similar lawsuit against alleged Chinese counterfeiters for selling fake jackets online. A Chicago federal judge last year awarded rival Canadian outerwear-maker Moose Knuckles $52 million in damages and control of 33 websites accused of selling knock-off parkas.

It seems like trademark and design patent plaintiffs like to forum shop and prefer the Federal Courts in Illinois and California. The cost for an effective defense usually exceeds $1 million, even if a defendant has legitimate defenses.

LULULEMON ATHLETICA CANADA INC.,Lululemon Athletica website screenshot lawsuit complaint page 1 Plaintiff,



The names of the defendants were filed under seal in a Schedule A – Sealed Document Pursuant to LR26.2. However, the complaint alleges that the defendants are based in China.

Lululemon Athletica is represented by:

Justin R. Gaudio, Amy C. Ziegler, Justin R. Gaudio, and Jessica L. Bloodgood of Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60606

Lululemon Athletica Complaint alleges that

3. This action has been filed by Lululemon to combat online counterfeiters who
trade upon Lululemon’s reputation and goodwill by selling and/or offering for sale unauthorized
and unlicensed counterfeit products and services using counterfeit versions of Lululemon’s
federally registered trademarks (collectively, the “Counterfeit Lululemon Products”).
Defendants create the Defendant Internet Stores by the hundreds and design them to appear to be
selling genuine Lululemon products, while actually selling Counterfeit Lululemon Products to
unknowing consumers. The Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design
elements and similarities of the Counterfeit Lululemon Products offered for sale, establishing a
logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants’ counterfeiting operation
arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.
Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going to great lengths to conceal both their identities and
the full scope and interworking of their counterfeiting operation. Lululemon is forced to file
these actions to combat Defendants’ counterfeiting of Lululemon’s federally registered
trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing Counterfeit Lululemon
Products over the Internet. Lululemon has been and continues to be irreparably damaged
through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of its valuable trademarks as a result of
Defendants’ actions and seeks injunctive and monetary relief.

Statutory Damages for Trademark Infringement

The Lululemon lawsuit is seeking to shut down the alleged fake websites and award Lululemon “all profits realized” by the defendants or statutory damages of $2 million pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the Lululemon trademarks.

The company also is seeking an order that the domain names for the counterfeit websites be transferred to its control.

Lululemon submitted a motion for leave for an Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”), including a temporary injunction, a temporary transfer of the Defendant Domain
Names, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery (the “Ex Parte Motion”).

The declarations in support of the motion appears to support the motion. The motion materials are well written and could serve as a great precedent for your next case.


WHEREFORE, Lululemon prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with
them be temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from:
a. using the LULULEMON Trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or
colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the distribution,
marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service that is not a
genuine Lululemon Product or is not authorized by Lululemon to be sold in
connection with the LULULEMON Trademarks;
b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product or service as a
genuine Lululemon Product or any other service or product produced by Lululemon
that is not Lululemon’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or
supervision of Lululemon and approved by Lululemon for sale under the
LULULEMON Trademarks;
c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants’
Counterfeit Lululemon Products are those sold or provided under the authorization,
control, or supervision of Lululemon, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise
connected with Lululemon;
d. further infringing the LULULEMON Trademarks and damaging Lululemon’s
goodwill; and
e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise
moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner,
products or inventory not manufactured by or for Lululemon, nor authorized by
Lululemon to be sold or offered for sale, and which bear any of Lululemon’s
trademarks, including the LULULEMON Trademarks, or any reproductions,
counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations thereof;
2) Entry of an Order that, upon Lululemon’s choosing, the registrant of the Defendant Domain
Names shall be changed from the current registrant to Lululemon, and that the domain name
registries for the Defendant Domain Names, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc.,
Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, shall
unlock and change the registrar of record for the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of
Lululemon’s selection, and that the domain name registrars, including, but not limited to,
GoDaddy Operating Company, LLC (“GoDaddy”),, PDR LTD. d/b/a (“PDR”), and Namecheap Inc. (“Namecheap”), shall take any
steps necessary to transfer the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar account of
Lululemon’s selection; or that the same domain name registries shall disable the Defendant
Domain Names and make them inactive and untransferable;
3) Entry of an Order that, upon Lululemon’s request, those in privity with Defendants and those
with notice of the injunction, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms
such as iOffer, eBay, AliExpress, and Alibaba, web hosts, sponsored search engine or adword
providers, credit cards, banks, merchant account providers, third party processors and
other payment processing service providers, Internet search engines such as Google, Bing
and Yahoo, and domain name registrars, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy,,
PDR, and Namecheap, (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”) shall:
a. disable and cease providing services being used by Defendants, currently or in the
future, to engage in the sale of goods using the LULULEMON Trademarks;
b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with
Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods using the
LULULEMON Trademarks; and
c. take all steps necessary to prevent links to the Defendant Domain Names identified
on Schedule A from displaying in search results, including, but not limited to,
removing links to the Defendant Domain Names from any search index;
4) That Defendants account for and pay to Lululemon all profits realized by Defendants by
reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for
infringement of the LULULEMON Trademarks be increased by a sum not exceeding three
times the amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
5) In the alternative, that Lululemon be awarded statutory damages for willful trademark
counterfeiting pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the
LULULEMON Trademarks;
6) That Lululemon be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
7) Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

About Author:

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *