Despite its track record for defending itself in copyright infringement lawsuits, Shein isn’t being sued this time—quite the opposite.
The fast-fashion giant has filed four separate lawsuits in Illinois’ Northeastern District Court against Temu and AliExpress sellers, whom the brand alleges infringed on its copyrighted products and intellectual property.
The Tik Tok favorite’s parent company, Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. filed its most recent lawsuit on Jan. 23, following one filing earlier last month, and two additional filings in November and December 2023.
Related Stories
“Shein’s affordable clothes and original designs have taken the internet by storm—and inspired many copycats on e-commerce platforms. Defendants are online sellers operating under one or more seller aliases that are advertising, offering for sale and selling clothing using Shein’s original, copyrighted works,” the complaint filed on Jan. 23 alleges.
In its complaint, Shein also asserts that it “has been irreparably damaged by defendants’ infringement” and notes that it “has never granted any license or rights in the Roadget copyrights to defendants.”
Though the company did not share which designs the legal actions address, a document from the latest case makes reference to a “boom bear shirt.”
Counsel for Shein filed documents in the first case, opened in November 2023, that show the copyright in question for that particular claim is its “swag bear” design, which depicts a teddy bear doing a popular dance move, known as the dab, wearing a sweatshirt that reads, “Boom.”
The shirt can still be purchased on Shein’s site. While Google search results for “boom bear shirt” populate several Temu listings, each listing has been marked “out of stock.” Upon clicking on the item and being redirected to the Temu site, a user sees a message that the item has been “discontinued.”
That could be because, in at least the first three cases, counsel for Shein filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which would “[enjoin] the unauthorized manufacture, import, distribution, offering for sale and sale of products bearing the copyrighted designs listed in the complaint” and cause “a temporary asset restraint.” In each of the three cases, the court granted Shein’s request.
Public court records do not show a TRO request for Shein’s most recent lawsuit. However, court records show a sealed document was filed on Jan. 23.
On Jan. 25, counsel for 22 of the sellers being sued by Shein filed an opposition to Shein’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
A preliminary injunction would cause the continuation of asset freezes brought on by TROs, and would continue to prevent the sellers being sued from selling the products in question.
The defendants’ counsel claims one of the TROs “is having a devastating impact on defendants’ businesses by freezing the entirety of their financial accounts (even funds unrelated to the sales of accused products).”
The document further notes that one defendant “had to shut down its factory…which resulted in the termination of 300 of its 500 employees,” while another has been “borrowing money from his personal credit cards to pay his worker’s salaries.”
The opposition states that, prior to a TRO brought on by this series of lawsuits, the defendants combined employed about 1,000 workers. Since the TRO, “most of them have either lost their jobs or had to work without pay; and, if the injunction continues, all of them will likely lose their jobs.”
The defending companies, made public by the opposition to the motion, seem to be based in China.
Shein has been “at war” with Temu in a number of lawsuits over the past several months. In one such lawsuit, Temu accuses Shein of “mafia-style intimidation” of sellers.
The opposition asserts that “[Shein’s] actions here appear to be part of a larger pattern of abusing the legal process by monopolizing suppliers and harming its competitor, Temu.”
Per the paperwork, counsel for the Temu sellers alleges that, “[Shein] told [Guangzhou Dexian Clothing Co. Ltd. dba Zero Series], whose sales of the accused product resulted in less than $1,500 in profit, that [Shein] would reduce its $400,000 settlement demand… and negotiate dismissal if the defendant agreed to stop selling on the Temu platform…and instead sell exclusively through Plaintiff’s platform, Shein.”
That, along with other claims, led the defendants’ counsel to write that the Singapore-based company has been “using TRO as a vehicle for its anticompetitive scheme to force merchants to supply goods through [Shein] rather than its competitor, Temu.”
On Jan. 26, Lindsay C. Jenkins, the judge presiding over the case filed by Shein in late January, granted the Temu sellers’ counsel leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
The fast-fashion giant hasn’t backed down on its fight against the Temu sellers it claims have infringed upon its copyrights.
“Shein looks forward to protecting its IP rights,” a spokesperson for the company told Sourcing Journal.
Other major fashion, apparel and footwear companies, like Nike and Birkenstock, have also brought copyright and trademark infringement lawsuits against e-commerce sellers in the past year. However, those lawsuits have typically included sellers from a variety of marketplace platforms, like AliExpress, Amazon, Wish, Etsy, DHGate and more. Though Temu cracks the list, it is not the primary entity called out in the complaints.
The Temu sellers’ counsel, Arch & Lake and Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, did not return Sourcing Journal’s requests for comment on the ongoing litigation.
