On March 25, 2026, a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York drew the attention of the global cross-border e-commerce industry to what appeared to be an ordinary trademark infringement case: football superstar Lionel Messi and his brand management company, LMGM, S.L.U., filed a lawsuit against multiple Chinese cross-border e-commerce sellers who allegedly sold counterfeit products bearing the “MESSI” trademark through platforms such as Temu and Walmart.

As one of the greatest players in the history of world football, Lionel Messi’s personal brand influence reached a new peak after the 2022 FIFA World Cup. In 2025, global sales of Messi-branded jerseys reached approximately 1.3 million units, and the “Messi Effect” has become a recognized concept in sports marketing. Since 2016, Messi has registered and owned the “MESSI” trademark in the United States, covering categories including apparel, footwear, sporting goods, luggage, and related lifestyle products. The trademark has been commercially developed through The Messi Store official online shop and collaborations with brands such as Adidas, giving it exceptionally high market recognition and commercial value.

The complaint filed by Messi’s team reveals a highly organized cross-border counterfeit sales network. The defendant sellers were not acting independently; instead, they allegedly employed four systematic evasion strategies to build their “resilience against enforcement actions”: registering platform accounts under false identities to conceal the true parties involved; using a “small-package, high-volume” international shipping approach to disperse shipments and evade customs inspections; rapidly changing domain names or transferring servers after receiving infringement notices; and hiding the flow of funds through multiple layers of payment gateways and offshore accounts. Such “guerrilla tactics” had previously caused traditional “notice-and-takedown” mechanisms to repeatedly fail, making it extremely difficult for rights holders to trace the actual infringers.

In response to this situation, Messi’s litigation strategy can be described as a “precision strike.” First, the team utilized the Schedule A sealed defendant list mechanism: at the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff submitted an attachment containing defendant identification information and requested that it remain temporarily sealed. Once approved by the court, the defendants remained unaware that they had been sued until the information was unsealed, thereby losing the opportunity to transfer assets or destroy evidence. Second, Messi’s team simultaneously sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, using a “blitzkrieg” approach to freeze defendants’ platform accounts and funds within 14 days without prior notice, directly cutting off their ability to operate. This preemptive strategy targets the critical weakness of counterfeit networks—their ability to move quickly in and out of business.

Another core issue in this case concerns the boundaries of e-commerce platforms’ liability in counterfeit sales. Messi’s team explicitly requested that the court order platforms such as Temu and Walmart to “immediately remove infringing products and suspend seller accounts,” raising questions about the evolving standards governing platform liability for trademark infringement under U.S. law.

For many years, the “safe harbor” provisions under Section 512 of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have provided platforms with protection from copyright infringement liability. As long as platforms promptly remove infringing content and designate an agent to receive infringement notices, they may avoid liability. However, the application of this safe harbor framework to trademark infringement remains controversial. In recent years, as the problem of counterfeit goods in cross-border e-commerce has intensified (with U.S. Customs authorities seizing counterfeit goods with an estimated retail value of approximately $5.4 billion in 2024), courts have gradually tightened platform liability standards through case law. Under the standard established in Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., if a platform “willfully ignores” counterfeit sales or has actual knowledge of infringement but fails to take action, it may be held liable for contributory infringement.

If Messi’s claims are upheld, e-commerce platforms may face significantly stricter compliance obligations. They may be required not only to respond passively to complaints but also to implement proactive monitoring measures for “high-risk categories” such as sports celebrity merchandise and luxury brands, establish stricter seller qualification review procedures (including identity verification and brand authorization checks), and potentially face joint liability for damages with sellers if they are found to have “willfully ignored” infringement.