If a shopper has ever walked into two different stores and felt as though they were seeing double, the same product under a different label, that resemblance was likely intentional.  Fast-retail brands thrive on the fine line between imitation and competition, but when does lawful competition become unlawful imitation?  Putting that question to the test, in November 2025, Pacific Market International, LLC (“PMI”), the maker of Stanley tumblers, sued Five Below Inc. (“Five Below”).[i]  In the Northern District Court of California, PMI sued for trademark infringement and parasitic copying.[ii]  More specifically, PMI alleges that Five Below’s five-dollar tumblers mimic the distinctive look of the infamous Stanley Quencher and IceFlow designs.[iii]  The lawsuit raises a deceptively simple question with far-reaching implications for modern retail, where the boundary between lawful competition and unlawful imitation is increasingly difficult to draw.

The rise of product duplicates has completely reshaped consumer culture, as fast retail brands continue to ride on the coattails of viral designs, later creating low-cost alternatives.[iv]  Stanley water bottles experienced an explosive surge from 2019 to 2023, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue as the “it” tumbler to own.  Stanley tumblers typically retail for around $45, a price point that fast-retail brands have leveraged by offering look-alike alternatives for as little as $5.  This dramatic price gap made the Five Below versions especially enticing, and it positioned the products as an accessible alternative for consumers priced out of the original.  This imitation is not limited to Five Below; stores like Target, Walmart, and Amazon have also sold duplicates of the renowned Stanley tumblers at competitively low prices.[v]

Trademark law draws a careful line between protecting brand identity and preserving competition.  That line is drawn through trade dress protection, which extends to design features used to identify a product’s source.  Courts evaluate these lines through trade dress, which governs when a product’s design may be protected as a trademark.  Trade dress refers to the overall look and feel of a product, including its shape, color, and design elements that identify the product’s source.[vi]  To succeed on a trade dress infringement claim, a plaintiff must prove that the trade dress is distinctive, non-functional, and that the defendant’s product creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.[vii]  It can be protected so long as the design remains distinctive and non-functional.[viii]  PMI’s claims rest on Stanley’s product designs meeting these requirements, and on Five Below’s tumblers crossing the line from competition into confusion.[ix]

PMI’s allegations hinge on Five Below copying Stanley’s protected trade dress in a manner likely to confuse consumers, and that Five Below crossed the line from competition into confusion by closely replicating those protected elements.[x]  This supposed replication is evident in Five Below’s incorporation of Stanley Quencher’s handle design, its remarkably similar color scheme, and packaging of its version of the tumbler.[xi]  PMI also notes that the lid structure and metallic bands create an association between Five Below and Stanley, which can erode the companies’ and brand’s goodwill or reputation.[xii]

PMI’s parasitic copying claim further sharpens this analysis.  Parasitic copying describes conduct where a competitor intentionally capitalizes on another brand’s reputation and market success by offering a look-alike product designed to benefit from consumer recognition.[xiii]  The allegation is not merely similarity, but strategic imitation.  PMI also asserts that Five Below continued to sell and expand its allegedly infringing tumbler line even after receiving a demand to stop.[xiv]

Five Below has forcefully pushed back, characterizing PMI’s claims as overbroad and legally flawed.[xv]  The retailer argues that the features at issue are functional and lack novelty, and therefore are not entitled to trade dress protection.[xvi]  Five Below’s answer highlights a significant limitation in trademark law, as some of the features incorporated into the tumbler cannot be protected.[xvii]  For example, a handle that improves grip or a tapered base that fits into cup holders serve a functional purpose, and removing these features would hinder the tumbler’s competitive features.[xviii]  Trademark law would likely not allow a company to use trade dress rights to affect a company’s goal to compete.

Ultimately, Pacific Market International v. Five Below Inc. is less about tumblers and more about how the law adapts to fast retail and imitations. It forces courts to confront whether existing trademark law can meaningfully police imitation. A ruling favoring PMI could encourage brands to pursue trade dress claims against duplicates more frequently and broadly. A verdict favoring Five Below could reaffirm the principle that competition, even close competition, is not itself unlawful.  In an era where trends move faster than litigation and brand identity is shaped as much by social media as by logos, the result may influence how aggressively brands protect trade dress and how cautiously retailers approach look-alike products.

At the same time, aggressive enforcement raises policy concerns.  Courts must be cautious not to conflate consumer confusion with consumer preference for lower-priced alternatives.  Such an outcome could affect competition and limit consumer access to affordable options.  The duplicate economy thrives precisely because consumers value aesthetics without the premium pricing that comes with them.  Beyond the parties, the case reflects broader trends in intellectual property enforcement.  Fast-growing consumer brands increasingly rely on trademark and trade dress law to defend their market position against copycats in a social media-driven economy, but viral success invites imitation.  The faster the trend cycle, the greater the pressure to draw legal boundaries that keep pace with the ever-changing market.

[i] Complaint at 2, Pac. Market Int’l, et. al v. Five Below, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09604-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] See How Dupe Culture is Reshaping Retail, ASG, https://consultasg.com/how-dupe-culture-is-reshaping-retail/ [https://perma.cc/HS83-LQK3] (last visited Feb. 24, 2026) (“Dupe culture has emerged as a disruptive trend within retail, signaling a powerful shift in consumer spending, especially among Gen Z shoppers.”).

[v] See Quinn Fish, I Tested 4 Stanley Tumbler Dupes Against the Original and the Winner Is Shockingly Better (and Under $20!), Yahoo (Jan. 13, 2024, at 8:45 AM EST), https://www.thekitchn.com/best-stanley-tumbler-dupes-23621644 [https://perma.cc/G5MW-8QMT] (comparing different imitations of the Stanley tumbler such as the ones sold by Five Below, Walmart, Target, and Amazon).

[vi] See Pejman Javaheri, Copycat or Coincidence? The Stanley Tumbler Lawsuit Explained for Brands, Juris L. Grp. (Nov. 11, 2025), https://jurislawgroup.com/copycat-or-coincidence-the-stanley-tumbler-lawsuit-explained-for-businesses/ [https://perma.cc/M3NR-X9J7] (explaining the specific terms surrounding trademark law such as trademark dress and its legal issues that surround it).

[vii] See Trade Dress Under the Law, Justia, https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/trademarks/trade-dress/ [https://perma.cc/6KXY-YKY4]  (last visited Feb. 24, 2026) (defining trade dress and its elements).

[viii] See Javaheri, supra note vi, (“It’s protected under U.S. trademark law if it’s distinctive and non-functional.”).

[ix] See Complaint, supra note i.

[x] See Complaint, supra note i.

[xi] See Complaint, supra note i, at 6.

[xii] See Complaint, supra note i, at 7,9.

[xiii] See Javaheri, supra note vi, (“‘Parasitic copying’ refers to a practice where one company creates a near-identical version of a successful product to ride on the original’s popularity without outright counterfeiting the logo or name.”).

[xiv] See Five Below Pushes Back: Inside the Claims Challenging Stanley’s Tumbler Monopoly, Fashion L. (Jan. 8, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/five-below-pushes-back-inside-the-claims-challenging-stanleys-tumbler-monopoly/ [https://perma.cc/U3QJ-W65Z] (“In the answer and counterclaims that it filed on January 2, Five Below takes aim at the validity of the rights that PMI claims to own in the Stanley cup designs, arguing that they are overbroad, legally flawed, and incapable of supporting the sweeping infringement allegations at issue.”).

[xv] Answer to Complaint at 2, Pac. Market Int’l, et. al v. Five Below, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09604-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025), Dkt. No. 18.

[xvi] Id. at 51.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] Id. at 6.