Comments to the USTR Regarding the 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy

Contents

Introduction. 1

Chinese E-Commerce Platforms Facilitate Intellectual Property (IP) Infringement 1

For the 2025 NML "Issue Focus" Consideration: USTR Should Urge More Countries To Combat Digital Piracy of Sports Broadcasts 5

Conclusion. 6

Appendix 1: ITIF Test Purchase Results 7

Appendix 2: How Chinese Online Marketplaces Fuel Counterfeits 8

Endnotes 8

Introduction

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is pleased to submit the following comments for consideration by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for the 2025 Notorious Markets List (NML). ITIF is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute focusing on the intersection of technological innovation and public policy.

Chinese E-Commerce Platforms Facilitate Intellectual Property (IP) Infringement

As documented in ITIF's August 2025 report How Chinese Online Marketplaces Fuel Counterfeits (see appendix 2), Chinese online marketplaces Temu, AliExpress, and SHEIN have become central actors in the global counterfeit economy.[1]In the summer of 2025, ITIF purchased suspected counterfeit goods from these platforms across a number of product categories, including apparel, cosmetics, toys, electronics, over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceuticals, and household goods.[2]ITIF found 25 out of 43 successfully-delivered products purchased to be confirmed or likely counterfeits (see appendix 1).[3]

These counterfeits not only inflict significant harm on U.S. right holders and legitimate businesses but also pose serious risks to consumer safety and undermine fair competition. This has been documented through rights holders' complaints and official investigations, including the Federal Trade Commission's recent penalty against Temu for violating the INFORM Consumers Act by not adequately protecting consumers from counterfeit goods.[4]Yet despite this scrutiny, these platforms have not adopted sufficient safeguards or enforcement practices to address counterfeit trafficking at the necessary scale.

Based on ITIF's research, these platforms clearly meet USTR's definition of markets that "engage in or facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy."[5]

Temu (temu.com)

Temu is owned and operated by PDD Holdings, a company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, and has operational and logistical bases in China.[6]

ITIF purchased 10 likely counterfeit products of well-known brands sold on Temu across categories such as apparel, cosmetics, toys, OTC pharmaceuticals, and household goods, often at prices far below typical retail prices.[7]ITIF found Temu's likely counterfeits to be more sophisticated and likely more deceptive to consumers than likely counterfeits identified on other Chinese online marketplaces.

Temu also alarmingly had multiple suspected and confirmed counterfeit items that pose direct health and safety risks to consumers. One example, delivered after the report's publication, resembled dog treats from the U.K.-based pet food company NutriPaw.[8]The counterfeit packaging contained spelling errors such as "complamentary" and "beel flavor," as seen in figure 1. Yanyankeji Local, a vendor profiled in depth in ITIF's report, listed the product.[9]

Figure 1: NutriPaw treats purchased by ITIF, product front

Additionally, the brand name was misspelled as "NutrlPaw," as seen in figure 2, and the barcode, seen in figure 3, mapped to a completely unrelated product.[10]In correspondence with ITIF, NutriPaw said "these are fakes," and that they "had received a report of rushing their dog to the vet after giving the fake treats due to severe vomiting."[11]

Figure 2: NutriPaw treats purchased by ITIF, product lid

Figure 3: NutriPaw treats purchased by ITIF, product barcode

Another product purchased from the test buy, listed as "Cold Relief," mimicked the appearance of Theraflu Nighttime Severe Cold Relief Powder, an OTC drug.[12]After ITIF submitted photos and information about the product to Haleon-the manufacturer of the authentic product-Haleon said, "It is most probably a counterfeit."[13] Notably, Temu's rebuttal letter to the 2024 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy said that "Temu does not sell prescription medications or any oral or injectable drugs."[14]

To Temu's credit, the company delisted nearly every product and vendor behind it mentioned in ITIF's report following the report's publication, including the likely counterfeit Theraflu medicine. Yet in subsequent searches, ITIF has continued to identify additional OTC drugs available for purchase on Temu, often miscategorized under unrelated product categories. This ongoing availability underscores the gap between Temu's public relations claims and its on-the-ground enforcement. Temu has shown commendable speed and willingness to respond to external reporting, but the company's anti-counterfeiting enforcement still has substantial room for improvement.

AliExpress (aliexpress.com)

AliExpress.com is owned by Alibaba Group, headquartered in Hangzhou, China.[15]

ITIF purchased 14 likely counterfeit goods on AliExpress, including luxury items, apparel, toys, and cosmetics.[16]For example, ITIF purchased a pair of men's shoes marketed as Brooks Ghost 15 running shoes on AliExpress for $78.48, significantly below Brooks' MSRP of $140 for the same product.[17]The seller's listed name was "Brooks Authorized Store," but in reality was the Chinese company Xiamen Bond New Material Technology, a subsidiary of Suzhou Tryan Plastic Technology (Tryan). Tryan is a plastics company whose products are used in "shoemaking" and which specializes in matching plastic colors to specific hues, according to its website. The shoes ITIF purchased had numerous discrepancies from authentic Brooks shoes, including mismatched barcodes on the shoe box and tongue, visual differences in design elements, and quality control issues with the outsole, as seen in figure 4. In correspondence with ITIF, a Brooks representative said, "I've confirmed with our quality teams here and can confirm this does not appear to be an authentic Brooks product."

Figure 4: Outsole detail of Brooks shoes purchased by ITIF

Despite years of scrutiny, including AliExpress's listing on the 2021 and 2022 NMLs, ITIF's investigation revealed that counterfeit trafficking is still prevalent on AliExpress.[18]Following the publication of ITIF's report, AliExpress delisted some of the flagged listings and a portion of the vendors named in the report, including the Brooks shoes and "Brooks Authorized Store," but the platform's response was overall slower than Temu's.

SHEIN (us.shein.com)

SHEIN is headquartered in Singapore, with corporate roots and supply chains in China, and it is owned by Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.[19]

ITIF purchased one likely counterfeit luxury item from SHEIN in the report's test buy.[20]SHEIN appears to have stronger anti-counterfeiting enforcement capabilities than Temu and AliExpress towards well-known brands' IP, although this may be due to SHEIN's narrower product focus on apparel and other fashion-related goods, which presents a smaller attack surface to defend against counterfeiters.[21]However, SHEIN still meets the NML's grounds for inclusion because it allows vendors on its platform to copy independent creators' designs to mass-produce and resell them at lower prices, undercutting original designs and small business brands.

For instance, ITIF found the same design on a t-shirt originally sold on Etsy for $33.50 by the U.S.-based, women-owned design company "WE THE BABES" on SHEIN for $14.46, with minor photo alterations and no acknowledgement of the source design.[22]While SHEIN appears to have made commendable strides in its anti-counterfeiting efforts against infringement of large brands' IP, it also appears to leave infringement against smaller-yet still important-rights holders largely unchecked.

For the 2025 NML "Issue Focus" Consideration: USTR Should Urge More Countries To Combat Digital Piracy of Sports Broadcasts

ITIF welcomes the 2025 NML's "issue focus" examining copyright piracy of sports broadcasts. Online piracy of live events, including American sports broadcasts such as UFC matches and NFL, NBA, or MLB games, is a growing global trend.[23]Countries can protect copyright holders by allowing judicial website blocking of video streams of live events. Yet only six countries in the world currently provide this safeguard: Canada, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

In June 2025, ITIF released its latest report on website blocking measures to curb access to digital piracy. [24]Policies to combat digital piracy can target the demand side (i.e., minimizing piracy consumption) or the supply side (i.e., targeting pirates and their sites); website blocking measures are part of the latter, along with prosecuting the piracy networks and disrupting their financial channels. ITIF's report shows evidence suggesting that website blocking is a particularly effective tool against digital piracy, as it reduces the consumption of pirated content and creates incentives to consume legal content.[25]

Blocking pirate websites that stream sports broadcasts is particularly challenging, as the value of the event is primarily in watching it in real time, and proxy sites can appear at any moment during the transmission. Thus, protecting copyright holders in these instances requires having a legal framework that allows blocking specific websites (static blocking orders), their proxies (dynamic blocking orders), and targeting specific timeframes when the sports events occur (live blocking orders). As shown in figure 5, 50 countries allow website blocking orders. Of those, only nine countries have measures to block live events, but in three of those countries (Greece, Italy, and Spain), government agencies can issue the website blocking orders-sometimes creating procedures without public consultation. Blocking orders mandated by courts are important because they can secure due process, ensure Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not liable for their customers' content, and balance the interests of all parties, ensuring there is no contradiction between copyright enforcement and freedom of expression.

USTR should urge other countries to adopt website blocking with judicial oversight to combat online piracy, including piracy of live sports events.

Figure 5. Countries allowing website blocking, by type of blocking injunction (N/A denotes not actively using)

Conclusion

ITIF recommends that USTR include Temu, AliExpress, and SHEIN on the 2025 Notorious Markets List because all three platforms meet USTR's criteria as notorious online markets. They facilitate systemic trafficking in counterfeit goods, harming U.S. right holders, undermining fair competition, and placing U.S. consumers at risk. For detailed evidence of test buys, seller and supply chain information, and methodology, please see ITIF's August 2025 report, How Chinese Online Marketplaces Fuel Counterfeits (see appendix 2).

To prevent digital piracy of sports broadcasts, USTR should urge countries not already doing so to implement judicial website blocking of live events.

Thank you for your consideration.

Appendix 1: ITIF Test Purchase Results

Appendix 2: How Chinese Online Marketplaces Fuel Counterfeits

Read the full report here.

Endnotes