Stanley Maker Sues Five Below Over Alleged ‘Dupe’ Tumblers
The maker of the wildly popular Stanley tumblers has filed a lawsuit against Five Below, accusing the discount retailer of selling near-identical copycat cups that infringe on its trademark and design rights.
The Plaintiffs, Pacific Market International, LLC and PMI WW Brands, LLC, allege in a federal complaint that Five Below is “a serial infringer” known for offering “lower-quality dupe products” that imitate successful third-party brands.
The claims
The maker of Stanley products (who we will refer to as ‘PMI’ for the purposes of this article) alleges that Five Below’s tumblers infringe on the protected trade dress of its Quencher and IceFlow lines, two of the most recognizable drinkware products on the market.
According to PMI’s complaint, the Quencher’s trade dress includes several distinctive design elements: a squared-off handle, a metal band separating the cup and lid, and a separate strip at the top of the lid. The IceFlow’s trade dress, meanwhile, is defined by its five-sided hexagonal handle, a similar metal band between the cup and lid, and a distinctive flip straw feature.
PMI contends that Five Below’s tumblers are “virtually identical” to these designs, incorporating “the distinctive combination of handle, band, and lid features” that make Stanley products instantly recognizable. The lawsuit characterizes Five Below’s conduct as a “willful campaign of intellectual property theft and unfair business practices.”
PMI also points to multiple media reports highlighting the similarities between the two products. The complaint cites coverage from outlets such as Business Insider, Parade, and The Kitchn, including a Business Insider headline that read, “Five Below’s $5 Stanley Cup dupe is flying off the shelves.”
The lawsuit marks the latest escalation in the growing “dupe culture” trend, where cheaper imitators of popular products gain viral traction online — often to the frustration of the original brand owners.
What factors will a judge or jury consider in this type of case?
This case is another example of how “dupe culture” raises questions about where the line lies between fair competition and trademark infringement.
From a legal standpoint, the core question of whether or not trademark infringement exists becomes: would consumers be confused?
Customer confusion can take two forms. The first is point-of-sale confusion, when a customer buys one of these tumblers and believes it’s made or endorsed by Stanley or its parent company, PMI.
Even if the price difference seems obvious, shoppers at a discount retailer might still think they’re getting a lower-priced “Stanley line” or a collaboration product. That’s enough to create liability if the design and branding are close enough to suggest a connection.
But the more interesting issue here is post-sale confusion, and this is where I think PMI has a particularly strong argument. Post-sale confusion happens when someone other than the buyer sees the product in use and assumes it came from the original brand.
Imagine someone spots a friend using a cheaper Five Below tumbler and thinks it’s a Stanley. If that knockoff leaks, chips, or performs poorly, the observer may walk away thinking “Stanleys aren’t as nice as I thought.” That harms the brand’s reputation even though PMI had nothing to do with the product.
Trademark law exists to prevent exactly this type of consumer confusion. It’s about protecting consumers and ensuring they are not deceived as to the source of a given product.
So when I see cases like this, I tend to side with the brand owner. These “dupe” strategies might feel clever in the short term, but they’re lazy business at best and actionable infringement at worst. Given the extent of the overlap here, from design elements to naming conventions, I wouldn’t be surprised if a court sides with PMI and orders Five Below to pull its copycat cups from the shelves.
Josh Gerben, Esq.
Josh Gerben, Esq. is a nationally recognized trademark attorney and the founder of Gerben IP. Since launching the firm in 2008, he has overseen the registration of over 10,000 trademarks and handled over 1,500 trademark disputes. Josh's practice focuses on building and defending global trademark portfolios for clients. These clients include entrepreneurs, private equity-backed businesses, athletes, celebrities, and public companies. Frequently quoted by major media outlets like CNBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, Josh is widely regarded as a leading authority in trademark law.
Do you need assistance with a trademark matter?
Contact an Attorney Today