Shein‘s facing legal heat from Dr. Martens-owned AirWair—but it isn’t letting itself get curb stomped.
In 2020, Shein faced a trademark infringement complaint from AirWair alleging that the fast-fashion company had infringed on several of its trademarks; it highlighted 26 examples of alleged infringement in the complaint.
The two companies settled that case in 2022, with Shein conceding that it would stop selling specific products, pay a fee to Dr. Martens and settle any future disputes over infringement outside of court, in what the two called a “cure” process.
Related Stories
But AirWair contended in a November 2024 complaint that Shein had taken its infringement too far, forcing it to police Shein’s site in an effort to prevent further infringement. AirWair alleges in its latest complaint that it sent dozens of takedown notices to the Singapore-headquartered company, eventually triggering a lawsuit despite the companies’ agreements to settle future issues outside of court.
“Shein’s near-constant infringement of AirWair’s rights since entering into a settlement agreement to resolve the prior lawsuit suggests that Shein never had any intention of complying with the prohibitions set forth in the agreement,” counsel for AirWair alleged in the 2024 complaint. “Instead, Shein has played a game of ‘catch me if you can,’ effectively outsourcing its intellectual property compliance obligations to AirWair.”
Shein filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. It noted that it had already made amends to AirWair on 28 of 61 allegedly infringing items through the cure process the two had agreed to by paying out AirWair.
It also alleged that AirWair had not provided sufficient evidence that its marks are famous enough to be diluted and that the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims are duplicative of the breach of contract claims outlined in the complaint, rendering them unable to be litigated further.
Susan Illston, the judge presiding over the case, agreed with Shein on some parts of its argument and disagreed on others.
On the question of whether the 28 cured products could be included in the non-contract claims—that is to say, the infringement and dilution claims—Illston sided with Shein.
“The court agrees that [AirWair] has elected and received a remedy in relation to the cured products and cannot base its non-contract claims on those products,” Illston wrote in her decision.
Illston also ruled that, if AirWair’s breach of contract claim failed, so too, would its breach of implied covenant claim, noting that “a breach of implied covenant claim does not provide a different remedy that breach of contract has not already provided,” rendering the breach of implied covenant claim duplicative.
While Shein scored some points from Illston, the judge allowed some of the serious claims AirWair brought against the fast-fashion purveyor to proceed.
For instance, Illston agreed that the trade dress dilution claims set forth by AirWair will move forward, though specified that she agreed with Shein on the fact that its opposition needed to provide more concrete evidence that the trademarks had enough strength for dilution.
“The court agrees that [AirWair] must identify with greater specificity which of its trade dress or trademarks are alleged to have achieved ‘household name’ status and how,” she wrote.
Nonetheless, she ruled, the infringement and unfair competition counts against Shein will advance. Illston said AirWair’s complaint “provides sufficient notice of its infringement claims for defendant to answer” because Shein can “reasonably respond” to what it has alleged.
Shein did not return Sourcing Journal’s request for comment. Federal case records show the company has not filed any documentation since Illston issued her ruling.
