In August 2026, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court rendered the first‑instance judgment in the trademark‑infringement case filed by Canadian sport‑apparel brand lululemon against Chinese domestic sportswear brand JU ACTIVE. All of lululemon’s claims were dismissed.

The judgment has not yet taken effect, and the plaintiff retains the right to file an appeal.

Parties to the Litigation

The plaintiff lululemon (lululemon athletica Canada Inc.) is a world‑renowned yoga‑sportswear brand founded in Canada in 1998. It entered mainland China in 2013, focusing on high‑end sportswear for yoga, training, running and other scenarios.

The defendant, Zhejiang JU ACTIVE Brand Management Co., Ltd. together with four other entities, operates the domestic sportswear brand JU ACTIVE. Established in 2019, the brand features yoga‑wear “more suitable for commuting wear‑out”. It runs more than 100 offline stores in major business districts nationwide and owns four self‑built global supply‑chain production bases. Its T‑mall flagship store has around 48 000 followers.

Case Details

lululemon alleged that five related defendants used graphic marks on store decoration, goods, hang‑tags and promotional materials, which were visually highly similar to its two core registered trademarks and constituted trademark infringement.

Accordingly, lululemon claimed RMB 20 million in economic damages, cessation of infringing acts and compensation for reasonable enforcement expenses.

The defendants argued in‑court that the disputed LOGO was independently designed, evolved from spliced letters “J” and “U”, inspired by the brand slogan “Just be U”. The mark was filed with and granted by the China National Intellectual Property Administration and remains valid. Both design logic and visual structure are essentially different from the plaintiff’s trademarks, with no subjective intent to free‑ride on lululemon’s goodwill.

Key Adjudication Points

Applying the trademark‑law principles of “overall observation” and “isolated comparison”, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court comprehensively evaluated the two graphic marks from phonetic, visual and conceptual dimensions.

The court pointed out that although both marks adopt an outer circular frame, circles are a general design element widely used in the apparel industry and cannot be monopolized by any single brand. Generic visual elements shall not become the private domain of one right‑holder, and design freedom in the industry shall not be monopolized.

Upon comparison, the core identifying graphics show remarkable differences. The JU ACTIVE logo derives from letters J and U, featuring asymmetrical lines with uniform thickness. The lululemon trademark evolves from the Greek letter Ω, with symmetrical lines and obvious thickness variation. Ordinary consumers exercising ordinary attention can distinguish brand sources; confusion or misrecognition among relevant public is unlikely, so trademark infringement is not established.

In addition, the court found that the defendant used this graphic across multiple product categories and color schemes beyond the scope of goods covered by its own registered trademark. Nevertheless, since the core graphic remains clearly distinguishable from the plaintiff’s trademark, such over‑scope use does not alter the conclusion of no trademark infringement. Exceeding the approved scope of use does not automatically equal trademark infringement against others.

Case Significance

This is a typical recent case where an international sport‑apparel brand sued a domestic Chinese enterprise for trademark infringement.

The court clearly demarcates the boundary for judging graphic‑trademark similarity. Mere partial similarity in individual elements will not constitute trademark infringement if core identifying components possess stable and differentiated original design. This ruling balances protection for international‑brand trademarks and legitimate development space for domestic independent brands, offering important judicial reference for trademark compliance within the sportswear sector.

Meanwhile, this case delivers clear compliance guidance for domestic brands designing LOGOs. Instead of imitating international brands and surviving in gaps of existing designs, brands should pursue originality starting from their own letter‑based identity. Against the background of increasingly strict trademark‑similarity adjudication, building original identifying features represents the fundamental way to avoid trademark risks.