Alo Yoga Sues Copycat Brand Over Alleged Trademark Hijacking Scheme

Image: Alo Yoga

Law

Alo Yoga Sues Copycat Brand Over Alleged Trademark Hijacking Scheme

Alo Yoga has waged a new lawsuit, accusing a Colorado-based entity of engaging in a multi-jurisdictional fraud scheme designed to impersonate the Los Angeles-born wellness brand and steal its intellectual property. In a newly-filed complaint, as first reported by TFL, Alo, LLC ...

April 14, 2025 - By TFL

Alo Yoga Sues Copycat Brand Over Alleged Trademark Hijacking Scheme

Image : Alo Yoga

key points

Alo Yoga has filed a new lawsuit, accusing an unrelated company of engaging in a scheme to impersonate its brand.

The brand alleges that the defendants forged documents to take control of its trademarks and sell counterfeit goods.

Alo is seeking a permanent injunction, a court order requiring the dissolution of the fake entity, and monetary damages.

Case Documentation

Alo Yoga Sues Copycat Brand Over Alleged Trademark Hijacking Scheme

Alo Yoga has waged a new lawsuit, accusing a Colorado-based entity of engaging in a multi-jurisdictional fraud scheme designed to impersonate the Los Angeles-born wellness brand and steal its intellectual property. In a newly-filed complaint, as first reported by TFL, Alo, LLC – the company behind popular lifestyle and athleisure brand Alo Yoga – claims that “ALO YOGA ALO, LLC,” a Colorado limited liability company, was created with the express purpose of infringing its trademark rights, misleading government authorities, and ultimately, attempting to sell counterfeit goods.

According to the complaint that it filed on April 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Alo asserts that Qigen Liu and Shoumin Zhu conspired to create the “Fake ALO Entity” in November 2024 by filing formation documents with the Colorado Secretary of State under the name “ALO YOGA ALO, LLC” – a name that Alo claims is “confusingly similar if not identical” to its registered trademarks. The buzzy brand – known globally for its yoga apparel, wellness products, and mindfulness-centric lifestyle offerings – maintains that this move was part of a broader “willful and fraudulent” scheme to misappropriate its brand identity and trademark portfolio.

Alo claims that shortly after forming the Colorado company, Zhu allegedly filed a false Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State, naming himself as Alo Yoga’s CEO – a role he does not hold. Using this falsified documentation, the defendants then allegedly submitted fraudulent trademark filings with both the China National Intellectual Property Administration and the World Intellectual Property Organization in an attempt to transfer ownership and control of Alo’s trademarks abroad.

Among other things, Alo accuses the defendants of submitting forged Articles of Organization, fabricating powers of attorney, and pasting signatures from real documents onto counterfeit ones to mislead foreign trademark offices. Alo maintains that had these efforts succeeded, the defendants would have gained control over valuable trademark registrations in China (which operates on a first-to-file trademark system) and beyond, potentially paving the way to license or sell counterfeit Alo products to global consumers.

> Alo asserts that “based on this coordinated infringement, interference with, and attempted theft of [its] registered trademarks,” the defendants are “preparing to sell or have already sold counterfeit goods with the intent to pass them off as ALO’s goods.” Also also argues that the name “ALO YOGA ALO, LLC” and the defendants’ use of the name is likely to confuse the public and harm the goodwill it has built over nearly 20 years, with the company highlighting that a simple Google search for the fake company pulls up actual Alo Yoga results, which, Alo claims, illustrates how easily consumers could be misled.

In addition to sets out a federal trademark infringement cause of action, Alo argues claims of false designation of origin, unfair competition, identity theft under California law, and conversion. Alo argues that the defendants’ actions have caused it to suffer from reputational harm, have interfered with its ability to enforce its rights, and have required it to expend significant resources to undo the alleged damage.

As part of its request for relief, Alo is seeking a permanent injunction to bar the defendants from using the “ALO” or “ALO YOGA” marks, a court order directing the dissolution of the Colorado entity, and an award of damages – including any profits derived from the alleged fraudulent activities.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The lawsuit sheds light on an increasingly common threat to globally recognized brands – fraudulent business formations and impersonation schemes aimed at hijacking intellectual property rights across borders. As fashion and wellness companies continue to expand globally, and their trademarks grow in value, so too do the risks of IP theft by bad actors willing to exploit regulatory gaps across jurisdictions.

The case is ALO, LLC v. Alo Yoga Alo, LLC et al, 2:25-cv-03204 (C.D. Cal.).

related articles