Key Intellectual Property Battles Set to Shape Fashion and Beauty Industries in 2026

As the fashion, apparel, and beauty industries enter 2026, several significant intellectual property litigations are expected to influence legal precedents and commercial dynamics throughout the year. These cases address pivotal questions about the protectability of minimalist designs, the limits of “duping culture,” and the necessity of comprehensive trademark clearance for emerging brands.

In Whoop, Inc. v. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (D. Mass., Case No. 1:25-cv-12690), Whoop, a Boston-based wearable technology company, has initiated a lawsuit against Shenzhen Lexqi, a Chinese manufacturer accused of producing and selling knockoff fitness trackers. Filed in Massachusetts federal court, the complaint alleges trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125). The dispute centers on Shenzhen’s online sales of devices under brand names like “SGJIK” and “EGQINR” on Amazon, which Whoop claims imitate its distinctive minimalist strap-and-clasp, screenless design. Key design elements at issue include the U-shaped clasp mechanism, hinged sides, rectangular sensor module, and strap-sensor configuration. Whoop contends that these features serve as source identifiers and that Shenzhen’s copies mislead consumers, damaging Whoop’s reputation for quality. The company seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief to halt further sales. This case raises the critical legal question of whether a minimalist aesthetic can qualify for trade dress protection, requiring demonstration of distinctiveness and non-functionality. It also highlights challenges in serving foreign defendants and the growing tension between U.S. brands and overseas manufacturers over IP rights.

Another notable dispute is Lululemon USA Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:25-cv-05864), filed on June 27, 2025. Lululemon, a leading athletic apparel company, alleges that Costco’s Kirkland brand sells unauthorized replicas—or “dupes”—of Lululemon’s popular SCUBA hoodies, DEFINE jackets, and ABC pants. The complaint asserts trademark and trade dress infringement, as well as violation of U.S. design patents protecting ornamental features such as stitching patterns. Lululemon claims these dupes cause consumer confusion and dilute its trademarks, damaging the brand’s reputation and goodwill cultivated through quality, innovation, and marketing. The company seeks damages, injunctive relief, and destruction of infringing inventory. This litigation spotlights the rise of “dupe culture,” where low-cost lookalikes gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, often under hashtags such as “Lululemon Dupes.” Media coverage, including articles from The Washington Post, has amplified public awareness of these similarities. The case also touches on ethical concerns, as many dupes originate from fast fashion brands with questionable labor practices. The outcome will be closely watched as it may define the boundary between lawful competition and infringement in the fashion industry.

In the beauty sector, Brandon Palas, founder of the men’s skincare line Beau D., filed suit on December 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Le Domaine, a French company associated with Brad Pitt’s luxury skincare brand. Palas alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, asserting prior use and registration of the Beau D. mark since December 2020. Le Domaine rebranded from “Le Domaine” to “Beau Domaine” in 2022 and secured federal registration in 2024 for cosmetic products. Palas contends that Beau Domaine incorporates his entire mark, causing a likelihood of confusion. The lawsuit follows unsuccessful settlement attempts, where Palas proposed rebranding, coexistence agreements, or funding for rebranding efforts by Le Domaine. This dispute underscores the critical importance of thorough trademark clearance and legal due diligence, even for celebrity-backed brands. It also illustrates the risks of proceeding with rebranding without resolving potential conflicts, which can lead to costly litigation and disruption.

Finally, Richemont International SA, alongside luxury maisons Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, commenced litigation against Malidani Jewelry Corp. on July 30, 2025, in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-06284-LAP). The complaint alleges counterfeiting, trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and design patent violations. Malidani is accused of selling jewelry closely resembling Cartier’s LOVE and Juste un Clou collections and Van Cleef’s Alhambra Guilloche design, with prices ranging from $1,500 to $9,000. Richemont representatives reportedly observed Malidani’s sales staff encouraging comparisons with authentic Cartier products to demonstrate indistinguishability. A protective order filed on November 6, 2025, suggests discovery focused on accounting, possibly indicating settlement discussions. This case is notable for involving high-priced alleged counterfeits, raising questions about consumer confusion and enforcement strategies for premium luxury goods. The outcome may influence how courts and brands approach protection of distinctive trade dress and patented designs in upscale markets.

Collectively, these cases reflect evolving challenges in intellectual property enforcement within fashion, apparel, and beauty industries. They highlight the increasing importance of protecting minimalist and ornamental designs, navigating the complexities of “duping culture,” and conducting rigorous legal due diligence to safeguard brand investments. The precedents set in 2026 will likely shape industry practices and IP litigation strategies for years to come.