Coach and its owner Tapestry have filed a lawsuit against Shein, alleging that the ultra-fast fashion giant is on the hook for the counterfeit goods being offered up on its marketplace site. In the complaint that they filed with the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California onMarch 13, Coach and Tapestry accuse Shein and its corporate entities of trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair competition as a result of the sale of products that bear trademarks that are “identical, substantially indistinguishable, or confusingly similar to” Coach’s federally registered trademarks in a way that is aimed at deceiving consumers into believing they are purchasing authentic Coach items.
According to the complaint, Shein facilitates the sale of counterfeit goods by providing logistical support, including warehousing, packaging, and shipping to third-party sellers on its marketplace site, and also handles customer complaints and returns in exchange for a 10% referral/selling fee. To make matters worse, Coach and Tapestry claim that intentionally blurs the line between the handbag, footwear, clothing, backpack, and accessory productsthat it has manufactured and offered up and those that come from third-party sellers.
Specifically, Coach and Tapestry contend that Shein does not clearly indicate when products are sold by third-party sellers, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit items and making it so that consumers are likely to believe that Shein is the seller of such products, not the third-party sellers that “are inconspicuously identified on [Shein’s] website.”
> For example, Coach and Tapestry contend that “when one searches for ‘coach’ on [Shein’s] e-commerce website, there is no indication that any of the products originated from a third-party seller, nor is there a clear indication of whether these products are sold on the ‘marketplace’ or what that means. When a customer selects what appears to be a legitimate ‘Coach’ product for purchase, the third-party seller’s information is so small and inconspicuous on the product listing such that a consumer could reasonably believe that [Shein] were the sellers with title or possession of the product who could have entered a contract to transfer title or possession.”
Interestingly, Coach and Tapestry do not set out claims of contributory liability against Shein, and instead, argue that Shein is direct liability for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin and false advertising, and unfair competition. The plaintiffs are presumably looking to place the bulk of liability on Shein because it is likely easier to identify than third-party sellers and has deeper pockets. But also, Coach and Tapestry maintain that Shein directly profits from the sales that take place on its marketplace site by collecting fees from third-party sellers and holds itself out as the seller to a large extent by allegedly failing to properly disclose the origins of the goods.
With the foregoing in mind, Coach is seeking injunctive relief to bar Shein from offering up counterfeit or otherwise infringing products, as well as monetary damages, including Shein’s profits from counterfeit sales, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. In furtherance of their lawsuit, Coach and Tapestry are also demands that all of the infringing goods be recalled and destroyed.
The case is Tapestry Inc. et al. v Zoetop Business Co. Limited, 2:25-cv-02224 (C.D. Cal.).
Share
