From Blurryface to Blurry Brands

E-commerce platforms, like TEMU, have become notorious for hosting a plethora of products that infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others, often dressing up blatant duplication as “inspiration” and stripping away the creative identity and reputation that brands spend years building. Recognising this threat, brand owners and celebrities, whose careers and public personas are inseparable from their brand image, are increasingly realising that intellectual property rights represent some of their most valuable assets. A recent example is the Grammy-winning duo Twenty One Pilots’ (Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun), complaint against Temu on 09 September 2025 (Twenty One Pilots, LLC v Whaleco, INC., a Delaware Corporation, individually, and doing business as “Temu”; and DOES 1-10). In their complaint, Twenty One Pilots accuse Temu of, inter alia, trade mark infringement, unfair competition and misappropriation of likeness.

The band provided extensive evidence, such as screenshots of identical merchandise, including two official shirts priced at $35, compared with Temu’s versions going for around ~$7. The case has drawn global attention, resonating not only with the band’s fan base but also within the broader creative and legal communities.

Twenty One Pilots allege that Temu has deliberately and systematically sold counterfeit products that use imitations of the band's trade marks. These infringing items are either confusingly similar to or nearly indistinguishable from their authentic merchandise. The band argues that by selling these goods, Temu is damaging their brand integrity, undermining their standing in the rock music community, and falsely suggesting an official association between the company and the band.

Additionally, Twenty One Pilots raise unfair competition claims, pointing to Temu’s practice of selling counterfeit goods alongside inferior or offensive products, conduct that they argue dilutes the distinctiveness of their marks by both blurring and tarnishment. Remedies sought include a permanent interdict a recall of said counterfeit goods, costs and damages of up to $2 million per counterfeit mark per type of goods offered for sale (if found that such use of the counterfeit mark(s) was wilful).

This case illustrates how intellectual property disputes rarely exist in isolation. In this single complaint, trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation of likeness, publicity rights, and unfair competition all converge.

The South African Lens

The legal battle unfolding in California highlights issues that resonate deeply within the South African creative landscape. Our laws provide a strong framework to protect artists' intellectual property. The Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 safeguards registered trade marks against unauthorised use, while the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 grants exclusive rights to creators of original works, including literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic creations. This protection specifically extends to an artist's logos, album art, choreography, and lyrics. Furthermore, the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 criminalises the sale of fake merchandise, empowering law enforcement to seize such goods and hold infringers accountable. Together, these acts form a powerful legal toolkit for artists seeking to protect their creative and commercial interests.

Building on this legal framework, licensing agreements form a crucial part of how intellectual property is managed. A license is a legal mechanism that allows an intellectual property owner to authorise another party to use their protected works under specific, agreed upon terms. This arrangement enables the owner to retain full ownership while granting rights of use, often in return for financial compensation and transforms an otherwise unlawful act into a legitimate one through consent.

Takeaway

Whilst Temu has acknowledged the intellectual property issues with its platform, Twenty One Pilots’ complaint is the harbinger of what is to still to come. That said, Temu does provide, through its intellectual property infringement notice portal, a formal mechanism for intellectual property rights holders to file infringement claims. This is a step in the right direction, though it only offers a reactive approach to enforcement.

The matter between Twenty One Pilots and Temu is bigger than a courtroom battle between a band and an e-commerce retailer. It is a reminder that intellectual property is the lifeblood of most modern artists. For them, a name, logo, or signature style is more than decoration, it is reputation, revenue, and identity rolled into one. When these are counterfeited or misused, the damage goes beyond lost sales: it erodes trust, confuses fans, and chips away at its value. Whether in Los Angeles or Johannesburg, the message is clear: protecting intellectual property is not optional. it is the foundation on which artists and brand owners keep their voices distinct in a market that rewards imitation.

Licensing, enforcement, and vigilance are not just legal tools. They are survival strategies in a world where fast fashion moves faster than the law.