Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

TAYLOR SHAYE DESIGNS LLC, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:23-cv-624-SEB-TAB
)
)
SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP.,
)
)
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP.’S ANSWER AND

DEFENSES/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, SHEIN Distribution Corp. (“Shein” or “Defendant”), by counsel, for its Answer

and Defenses/Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint, states as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a Louisiana limited liability company with a principal place of business

at 18063 Old Reserve Dr., Prairieville LA 70769.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

2. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a place of business at 5402 E. 500 S.,

Whitestown, IN 46075.

ANSWER: Defendant admits it is a Delaware corporation. Except as expressly admitted

herein, Defendant denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 38

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Plaintiff brings this action for copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act,

17 U.S.C. § 501, et. seq. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1338(a).

ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff’s Complaint purports and alleges a claim for

copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, et. seq., and that this Court

has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Defendant denies that

it perpetrated a copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, et. seq..

Defendant denies all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it does business in this

judicial district, has committed statutory torts within this judicial district, and/or has sufficient

contacts to subject it to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because

Defendant may be found in this judicial district since it does business in this judicial district, has

committed statutory torts within this judicial district, and/or has sufficient contacts to subject it to

personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. Plaintiff is a designer and retailer/wholesaler of jewelry that is known for its

fashionable and affordable jewelry designs.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

-2-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 39

7. Plaintiff designed and sells an earring in the shape of boots that is calls its Let’s Go

Girls design (the “LGG Design”). A photograph of the LGG Design is below:

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

8. The LGG Design is protected with the U.S. Copyright Office as Copyright

Registration No. VA 2-318-693. A copy of the certificate of registration for U.S. Copyright

Registration No. VA 2-318-693, which is in full force and effect, is filed herewith as Exhibit A.

The effective date of Copyright Registration No. VA 2-318-693 is August 24, 2022.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

9. Shein is a Chinese online fast fashion retailer that is known for selling inexpensive

apparel, jewelry, and other accessories. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the U.S. sales

and distribution arm of the global Shein conglomerate.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that it is a Delaware Corporation. Defendant also admits that

it is an e-Commerce retailer that sells products (including apparel and jewelry) online through

https://us.shein.com/. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about

-3-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 40

the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore

denies the same.

10. Defendant, either directly or through an affiliate, operates a distribution center

located at 5402 E. 500 S., Whitestown, IN 46075.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that an affiliate entity operates a place of business at 5402

E. 500 S., Whitestown, IN 46075. Except expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies all

remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Defendant’s products are offered and sold throughout the United States, including

to residents of the State of Indiana.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12. One such product sold by Defendant was a product that copied the LGG Design

(the “Infringing Product”), a photograph of which is below:

ANSWER: Defendant denies it copied the LGG Design pictured in paragraph 12.

Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

-4-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 41

13. As the copyright owner of the LGG Design, Plaintiff has the exclusive rights to: (a)

reproduce the LGG Design; (b) prepare derivative works based upon the LGG Design; and (c)

distribute copies of the LGG Design.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

14. Defendant has clearly used, copied, and/or created derivative works based upon the

LGG Design.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

15. Defendant’s use of the LGG Design is without the permission or consent of

Plaintiff.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

16. Defendant’s use, copying, and distribution of the Infringing Product infringes the

copyright in the LGG Design and violates Plaintiff’s exclusive rights therein.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

COUNT I: DIRECT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-16 and re-alleges them as if stated

herein.

ANSWER: Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-16 as

though fully set forth herein.

18. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Defendant (directly or through

intermediaries) knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied the LGG Design and manufactured

and/or distributed the Infringing Product.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

-5-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 42

19. Defendant’s (and/or its intermediaries’) copying, use, and distribution of the

Infringing Product violates Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. The infringement of the copyright in the LGG Design was knowing and willful.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Defendant has realized unjust profits, gains, and advantages as a proximate result

of the infringement.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

22. The infringement of the copyright in the LGG Design has caused Plaintiff damages.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.

COUNT II: VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-22 and re-alleges them as if stated

here.

ANSWER: Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-22 as

though fully set forth herein.

24. To the extent that the Infringing Product was created and/or distributed by an

intermediary, such as an affiliated Shein company or other third party, Defendant is, at a minimum,

vicariously liable for the infringement of the LGG Design.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant knowingly induced, participated in, aided

and abetted in, and profited from the sale of the Infringing Product.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.

-6-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 43

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant is vicariously liable for the infringement

alleged herein because it has the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and because

it had a direct financial interest in the infringing conduct.

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff stands entitled to any relief in this case, including, but not

limited to, the relief sought in the “PRAYER FOR RELIEF/WHEREFORE” section of the

Complaint.

Defendant denies any factual or legal allegations not otherwise specifically addressed in

this Answer.

Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses not presently known but which

become apparent in the course of discovery.

DEFENSES/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant, by counsel, asserts the following defenses/affirmative defenses, and reserves

the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as it discovers the basis for such additional

defenses:

FIRST DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the acts complained of were

performed by third parties not under the direction or control of the Defendant. To the extent that

Plaintiff has suffered any damages, such damages were the result of the acts or omissions of third

parties.

SECOND DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the alleged infringement was not caused by a

volitional act attributable to Defendant.

-7-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 44

THIRD DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or Plaintiff’s ability to obtain damages is restricted in this

case because Defendant was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted an

infringement of copyright.

FOURTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief against Defendant because Defendant has not infringed any

intellectual property rights of Plaintiff.

FIFTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant’s conduct was in good

faith and with non-willful intent, at all times. If such good faith and lack of intent does not, as a

matter of law, preclude a finding of liability, any general or statutory damages awarded to Plaintiff

should be correspondingly reduced.

SIXTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any infringement by Defendant,

if proved, was innocent.

SEVENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any infringement by Defendant,

if proved, was de minimus.

EIGHTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claims contained in the Complaint to the extent

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright alleged to have been

infringed.

-8-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 45

NINTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has not properly or timely

registered the copyright in the LGG Design.

TENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff’s copyright in the LGG

Design is invalid and/or unenforceable.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for injunctive relief.

TWELTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant has not copied the constituent original elements, if any, of Plaintiff’s purported

copyrighted work.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to permit recovery of attorneys’ fees or statutory

damages.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of acquiescence, waiver,

laches, unclean hands, and/or estoppel.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of fair use.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of copyright misuse.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations.

-9-
Case 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB Document 15 Filed 05/30/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 46

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of merger and/or scenes

a faire.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the statutory damages sought are unconstitutional and

in violation of the due process clause, because they are excessive and disproportionate to any actual

damages that Plaintiff could ever demonstrate that that Plaintiff sustained.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, SHEIN Distribution Corp., by counsel, respectfully requests

that Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint, that the Defendant be awarded its costs herein,

including attorneys’ fees, and that the Defendant be granted all other relief that the Court deems

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

ICE MILLER LLP

s/ David J. Carr
David J. Carr, Attorney No. 4241-49
Thomas A. Walsh, Attorney No. 18936-49
Paul C. Sweeney, Attorney No. 20392-29

Attorneys for Defendant

ICE MILLER LLP

One American Square, Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200
Phone: (317) 236-2100
Fax: (317) 592-4810
David.Carr@icemiller.com
Thomas.Walsh@icemiller.com
Paul.Sweeney@icemiller.com

4878-2927-8566.3

- 10 -