Dr. Martens Sue Temu over Trademark Infringement

A trademark is a word, symbol, logo, or slogan that distinguishes the goods or services of one business from another. When registered, a trademark becomes a form of intellectual property protection, helping to safeguard brand identity and deter others from profiting off an established name.

Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses a mark that is identical—or confusingly similar—to a registered trademark, potentially misleading consumers. In many cases, this allows infringing brands to benefit from the reputation of better-known companies instead of building brand equity on their own.

In this case, Dr. Martens is not accusing Temu of copying their branding or product design. Instead, the claim centers on Temu allegedly using Dr. Martens’ registered trademarks without permission in Google Ads campaigns. These ads reportedly positioned cheaper, lookalike products next to Dr. Martens' listings, potentially diverting traffic and sales.

While this strategy may seem like a textbook infringement, Google’s policies state that simply using a third-party trademark as a keyword doesn’t automatically violate trademark law. For Google to take enforcement action, there must be evidence of consumer confusion—a standard echoed by UK case law.

However, precedent is not entirely on Temu’s side. In 2021, the Spanish Supreme Court found that merely using a competitor’s trademark as a keyword could amount to infringement, even without overt signs of confusion. This leaves the Dr. Martens vs. Temu case in a legal gray area, where precedent is far from settled—some rulings suggest that using trademarks as keywords constitutes infringement, while others take a more permissive view. Google’s alignment with the latter approach further complicates the matter.

Nevertheless, both e-commerce platforms and trademark holders are watching the case closely, as its outcome is likely to influence future precedent and shape the boundaries of trademark protection in digital advertising.

This is not the first time Dr. Marten's exercised their trademark rights in a high-profile case. Just a few years ago, they sued another famous Chinese retailer—Shein—over sales of counterfeit goods. In the 2020 trademark infringement complaint, AirWair alleged that 26 of Shein's products were blatantly copying Dr. Marten's famous design. The case was settled in 2022, with Shein agreeing to stop selling the aforementioned products as well as paying a fee to Dr. Martens. While the case was settled, Shein did not stop getting into hot waters with products that are confusingly similar to Dr. Marten's famous boots. This all culminated in another complaint filed in November 2024, where Dr. Marten's once again claimed Shein has infringed on their trademarks and therefore breached the clauses of their settlement agreement.

Both complaints against the e-commerce giants come at a problematic time for Dr. Marten's. The companies shares have dropped almost 83% since its IPO in 2021. Additionally, in January, the company has reported that their yearly net profit before tax is down by 43% compared to 2023.

Trademark law—especially in the context of keyword advertising and online platforms—is far from straightforward. In the case of Dr. Martens vs. Temu, success hinges on whether Dr. Martens can prove that Temu’s ad strategy is likely to confuse customers.

This case highlights the legal gray area surrounding Google Ads and could help define how future e-commerce platforms approach competitive advertising. While it’s a challenging road ahead for Dr. Martens, the outcome could reshape how trademarks are protected in digital marketplaces.

Trademark infringement occurs when another party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, potentially misleading consumers into thinking the products are related.

This case doesn’t involve copying logos or designs—instead, it focuses on Temu’s use of Dr. Martens' name in Google Ads keywords. The challenge is proving that this strategy caused consumer confusion, which is required to establish infringement under most laws.

Not necessarily. Under current Google policy and UK law, using a competitor’s trademark as a keyword is not automatically considered infringement. However, it may be if it causes actual consumer confusion or misleads users about the origin of the product.