Twenty One Pilots v. Temu Trademark Lawsuit: April 2026 Ruling

The Twenty One Pilots trademark lawsuit against Temu is active and moving toward discovery after a federal judge in April 2026 denied Temu’s motion to dismiss the case. The Grammy-winning duo of Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun sued the e-commerce platform in September 2025, accusing it of selling counterfeit versions of the band’s merchandise, and the ruling allowed those claims to survive Temu’s usual “we’re just a marketplace” defense.¹

What the Band Accused Temu Of

Twenty One Pilots, LLC filed suit on September 9, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming Whaleco, Inc., the Delaware subsidiary that operates Temu in the United States. The case was assigned number 2:25-cv-08521 before Judge Patricia Donahue, with Magistrate Judge Wesley L. Hsu.²

The complaint said Temu knowingly marketed and sold counterfeit merchandise bearing the band’s trademarked name, logos, and artwork. It ran nearly two dozen pages of screenshots showing allegedly infringing products on the platform. Posters, shirts, mugs, socks. The band called the items “confusingly and/or virtually identical” to its official goods.³

Two price comparisons stand out in the filing. A $35 shirt on the band’s official site featuring its logo and a dragon design was allegedly copied and offered on Temu for $8.51.⁴ A second shirt showing Joseph and Dun back to back sold officially for $35 and was allegedly replicated on Temu for $7.54.⁵ The complaint also identified unauthorized use of cover art from the band’s 2015 album, Blurryface.³

The complaint’s language about Temu itself went well beyond the products. It called Temu “one of the most unethical companies operating in today’s global marketplace” and alleged the platform sells products of forced labor, aids the Chinese Communist Party, offers toxic lead-containing products, and hosts merchandise promoting homophobia and violence.⁵ A later filing described Temu’s marketplace as a “veritable swamp of infringing and otherwise illegal products.”¹

The Trademarks at Issue

The band’s core intellectual property is a federal word mark. “TWENTY ONE PILOTS” was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 30, 2013, under Registration No. 4374449, held by Twenty One Pilots, LLC of Nashville, Tennessee. The mark covers entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, including musical composition, sound recording production, live performances, and concerts, under International Class 041. The registration includes a distinctive design element combining stylized columns, with one appearing to collapse to the right, alongside the band’s name.⁶

Temu’s Motion to Dismiss

Temu filed motions to dismiss and to strike the complaint on December 4, 2025.² The company’s argument tracked the position it has used in other intellectual property cases: Temu is a marketplace connecting buyers with independent third-party sellers, and it should not be held liable for infringement committed by those sellers.¹

That defense had recently succeeded elsewhere. A similar counterfeiting suit filed by the estate of the late rapper MF Doom in August 2025, brought by the same attorney representing Twenty One Pilots, was dismissed by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. on December 10, 2025. The estate was given until December 19, 2025, to file an amended complaint, with the court warning that “the estate should not expect another opportunity to amend.”⁷

The Amended Complaint Reframed the Case

Twenty One Pilots had already moved to head off that defense. On November 20, 2025, before Temu even filed its dismissal motion, the band submitted a First Amended Complaint.² The revision changed the theory of the case. Rather than treating Temu as a passive platform, the amended pleading argued that Temu operates as a “vertically integrated manufacturer and retailer” that exercises “substantial control over its marketplace,” and functions as a “direct seller” responsible for the counterfeit goods listed there.¹

The amended filing also broadened the legal claims to include trademark infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of likeness, and added a request for statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of product sold on a willful-infringement theory.¹ The band also sought a permanent injunction against manufacturing or selling infringing products, along with a recall of all such items.⁸

The April 2026 Ruling

The parties agreed to move the hearing from March 20 to April 10, 2026.² Reporting on April 9, 2026, the federal judge denied Temu’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed on the amended complaint’s allegations that Temu is more than a passive intermediary.¹

The ruling aligns with other courts that have looked skeptically at Temu’s marketplace framing. In Roadget Business PTE. LTD. v. PDD Holdings, brought by Shein in the Northern District of Illinois, the court noted internal Temu materials describing the company as an “end-to-end” host managing pricing, marketing, logistics, and after-sales for sellers, and granted a temporary restraining order against Temu.⁹

Temu’s response to the suit has been the statement it has used in other IP cases: “Temu respects the intellectual property rights of others and takes all infringement claims seriously. While we uphold this commitment, we will vigorously defend ourselves against unfounded allegations.”⁵ Neither Tyler Joseph nor Josh Dun has issued a personal public statement about the case.

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, the case is past the pleading stage. A Rule 26(f) scheduling conference was set for April 10, 2026, which typically establishes discovery timelines and later proceedings.² No trial date has been publicly set. The band is represented by attorney Jeff Gluck, and with the amended complaint seeking up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per product type against the dozens of items documented in the filing, Temu’s potential financial exposure is substantial.¹

How This Fits Into Temu’s Other IP Cases

Temu faces upwards of 20 ongoing lawsuits as a defendant in U.S. federal courts, primarily in Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and California, most involving copyright, trademark, or patent infringement claims.¹⁰ Two are worth knowing about alongside the Twenty One Pilots case.

The MF Doom estate case, filed in August 2025 by the same attorney, alleged unauthorized use of the late rapper’s name and likeness. It was dismissed in December 2025 on the marketplace-liability argument, with leave to amend.⁷ Brandy Melville’s parent companies sued Temu in New Jersey federal court in July 2025, alleging counterfeit products replicating the brand’s designs and use of photographs from the brand’s website to market the knockoffs. A court denied Temu’s motion to dismiss in that case as well, finding enough platform-wide involvement to move to discovery.¹¹

The pattern matters because Twenty One Pilots’ path through the pleading stage rests on the same shift the Brandy Melville court accepted and the MF Doom court initially did not: treating Temu as a direct participant in its marketplace rather than a bystander to it. The direct-seller theory is now the question the case will be litigated on.

1
Digital Music News. Temu Twenty One Pilots Lawsuit Dismissal Rejected
2
Justia Dockets. Twenty One Pilots, LLC v. Whaleco, Inc. et al
3
Rolling Stone. Twenty One Pilots Accuse Temu of Selling Fake Merch in Lawsuit
4
People. Twenty One Pilots Sues Temu for Selling Fake Merchandise
5
Billboard. Twenty One Pilots Sues Temu Over Knockoff Merchandise
6
Justia Trademarks. Twenty One Pilots Trademark Registration
7
Digital Music News. MF Doom Temu Lawsuit Dismissed
8
Consequence of Sound. Twenty One Pilots Temu Lawsuit
9
CaseMine. Roadget Business PTE. LTD. v. PDD Holdings Inc., et al.
10
The Fashion Law. Temu: A Look at the Legal Landscape for an Ultra-Fast Fashion Giant
11
Fashion Dive. Brandy Melville Sues Temu