Messi sues cross-border e-commerce sellers for trademark infringement

On March 25, 2026, a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York drew the attention of the global cross-border e-commerce industry to a seemingly ordinary trademark infringement case. Football superstar Lionel Messi and his brand management company, LMGM, S.L.U., sued multiple Chinese cross-border e-commerce sellers who had been selling counterfeit "MESSI" branded goods on platforms such as Temu and Walmart.

As one of the greatest football players in history, Messi’s personal brand influence reached new heights after the 2022 World Cup. In 2025, global sales of Messi jerseys reached approximately 1.3 million units, and the "Messi Effect" has become a recognized term in sports marketing. Since 2016, Messi has registered and owned the "MESSI" trademark in the United States, covering clothing, footwear, sports equipment, bags, and related lifestyle products. The trademark is commercially operated through the official online store, The Messi Store, and through collaborations with brands such as Adidas, giving it high market recognition and commercial value.

Messi’s complaint revealed a well-organized, cross-border counterfeiting network. The defendant sellers did not operate in isolation but employed four systematic evasion strategies to create a "resilient" operation: using false identities to register platform accounts and conceal their true identities; shipping in a "swarm of ants" pattern via small international postal parcels to avoid customs inspection; rapidly changing domain names or transferring servers upon receiving infringement notices; and using multi-layer payment gateways and offshore accounts to hide the flow of funds. This "guerrilla tactic" has repeatedly rendered the traditional "notice and takedown" mechanism ineffective and made it extremely difficult for rights holders to trace the infringing parties.

In response, Messi’s legal team adopted a "precision strike" litigation strategy. First, they invoked the Schedule A sealed defendant list mechanism — filing an appendix containing the defendants’ identity information along with the complaint and requesting a temporary seal. After court approval, the defendants were completely unaware of the lawsuit until the seal was lifted, depriving them of the opportunity to transfer assets or destroy evidence. Second, they simultaneously applied for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction, using a "blitzkrieg" approach to freeze the defendants’ platform accounts and funds within 14 days, without prior notice, directly cutting off their ability to operate. This "preemptive" strategy targets the Achilles' heel of the counterfeiting network — its "fast-in, fast-out" business model.

Another core issue in this case is the boundary of platform liability for counterfeiting. Messi explicitly requested the court to order platforms such as Temu and Walmart to "immediately remove the infringing listings and ban the seller accounts," which touches upon the evolution of U.S. law regarding platform liability for trademark infringement.

For a long time, the "safe harbor" provision of Section 512 of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has provided platforms with a shield against copyright infringement liability — as long as they promptly remove infringing content and designate an agent to receive notices, they can avoid liability. However, the applicability of this rule to trademark infringement remains controversial. In recent years, as the cross-border e-commerce counterfeit problem has worsened (U.S. Customs seized counterfeit goods with an estimated retail value of approximately $5.4 billion in 2024), courts have gradually tightened platform liability through case law. Under the standard established in Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., a platform may be held contributorily liable for trademark infringement if it "willfully blinds itself" to counterfeit sales or has actual knowledge of infringement but fails to act.

If Messi’s claims are supported, platforms would face stricter duties of care: not only passively responding to complaints, but also potentially implementing proactive monitoring of "high-risk categories" such as sports celebrity merchandise and luxury brands, establishing more rigorous seller vetting procedures (e.g., identity verification, brand authorization checks), and possibly even facing joint and several liability for damages with the sellers due to "willful blindness." China Intellectual Property Lawyers Network will continue to follow the developments of this case.