IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—C.D. Cal.: Shein wins partial dismissal of Brandy Melville copyright, trademark suit, (May 1, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The court said the two dismissed causes of action are preempted by the Copyright Act.

Popular online retailer Shein won dismissal of two causes of action in a copyright and trademark lawsuit brought by fashion brand Brandy Melville. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a claim for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and a claim for common law unfair competition, finding that both claims are preempted by the Copyright Act. However, the court ruled against Shein in denying the retailer’s request to strike references to false designation of origin from claims alleging common law contributory copyright infringement and common law vicarious copyright infringement (Bastiat USA, Inc. v. Shein Distribution Corp., No. 2:25-cv-05701-ODW-DMK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026)).

Background. Fashion and lifestyle brand Brandy Melville holds copyrights for various clothing designs and photographs. Plaintiff, Bastiat USA, Inc., is the assignee of such copyrights. Defendants, Shein Distribution Corp. and related entities, operate the popular online retailer Shein.com. Bastiat sued Shein for copyright and trademark infringement, alleging that Shein and third-party sellers sell, distribute, and profit from counterfeit Brandy Melville goods. Bastiat also alleges that Shein and third-party sellers display without permission the same images and advertising materials that appear on Brandy Melville’s website.

Bastiat brought five causes of action: (1) copyright infringement under the Copyright Act; (2) trademark infringement for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act; (3) common law unfair competition; (4) common law contributory copyright infringement; and (5) common law vicarious copyright infringement. Shein moved to dismiss counts two and three and to strike allegations of false designation of origin in counts four and five.

Count two. The court dismissed Bastiat’s second cause of action for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, in which Bastiat had invoked trademark law protections against confusion as to the origin of the goods. The court reasoned that the Copyright Act preempted the Lanham Act claim. Bastiat alleged facts that implicate rights protected under the Copyright Act, namely the allegation that Shein used Brandy Melville photos without permission. As to Bastiat’s attempt to recast the same allegations as consumer confusion, the court said that although Bastiat recited the elements of a false designation of origin claim, Bastiat’s Lanham Act claim rests on the same alleged misconduct as its copyright claim. The court issued the dismissal without leave to amend because of the finding of preemption.

Count three. The court dismissed Bastiat’s third cause of action for common law unfair competition, here again finding that the claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. Bastiat argued that Shein’s use of Brandy Melville’s advertising materials and photographs on Shein’s website represented an implied association with Brandy Melville. However, the court found that Bastiat was seeking to vindicate rights equivalent to those protected by the Copyright Act, and had asserted rights exclusive to copyright owners under the Copyright Act. The court further found that the allegation of implied association did not supply any required “extra element” that would transform the nature of the action. Thus, the court concluded that because Bastiat’s common law unfair competition cause of action adds no qualitatively different right beyond those protected by copyright law, the Copyright Act preempts the third cause of action. The court issued the dismissal without leave to amend because of the finding of preemption.

Counts four and five. The court denied Shein’s request to strike paragraphs 81 and 87 from the fourth and fifth causes of action. In these claims, Bastiat alleged that Shein was liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for using or permitting others to use the infringing designs and photographs on Shein’s website. The subject paragraphs referenced false designation of origin, which Shein argued was “immaterial to the relief sought.” However, the court said that it cannot conclude at this time that the allegations are immaterial to the relief sought and may, fact, support the how Shein displayed and promoted the products. “Whether these allegations ultimately establish Shein’s knowledge, material contribution, supervisory authority, financial benefit, or willfulness is better resolved on a complete factual record, not on a Rule 12(f) motion.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-05701-ODW-DMK.

Judge: Wright, O.

Attorneys: Keith J. Wesley (Ellis George LLP) for Bastiat USA, Inc. Benjamin L. Dooley (Merchant and Gould PC) for Shein Distribution Corp.

Companies: Bastiat USA, Inc.; Shein Distribution Corp.

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews