Tate McRae’s Merch Partner Sues to Stop Knockoff Sellers at Miss Possessive Tour

Tate McRae’s official merch supplier says in a new lawsuit that a law enforcement response is necessary to stop so-called “bootleggers” from selling knockoff t-shirts, hats and other infringing goods during the U.S. leg of the pop star’s Miss Possessive arena tour.

The claims come in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed Tuesday (Aug. 26) by the Merch Traffic, which sells official merchandise for major artists like Harry Styles, Sabrina Carpenter, Drake and BTS. Merch Traffic is the exclusive merch retailer for the U.S. leg of McRae’s global Miss Possessive tour, which began Aug. 13 and runs through Nov. 8.

Merch Traffic is going after a group of unknown individuals — described in the legal complaint as “John Does 1-100” and “Jane Does 1-100” — who are selling fake McRae merch around the arenas where she’s performing.  

“The tour has just begun and so have defendant bootleggers’ infringing activities,” write Merch Traffic’s lawyers. “The infringing merchandise is of the same general appearance as plaintiff’s authorized tour merchandise and is likely to cause confusion among prospective purchasers.”

Merch Traffic says the knockoffs are of “inferior quality” but similar enough to be mistaken for official Miss Possessive tour merch — meaning that if left unchecked, these bootleg sales will harm both its own reputation and McRae’s.

The company therefore is seeking a court injunction that would empower law enforcement to seize and impound infringing goods outside McRae’s shows. The lawsuit notes that judges have previously entered these types of injunctions in similar lawsuits, allowing police to seize phony merch at the tour stops of Nicki Minaj, the Jonas Brothers and Blink-182.

“Defendant bootleggers have appeared at past concerts and will appear at future concerts,” the lawsuit says. “After the infringing merchandise is sold, they will promptly disappear. Even if defendants received notice and were served with a proposed temporary restraining order, it is highly unlikely that they would voluntarily comply and not sell their goods. Simply stated, there is no other means of preventing the defendants from destroying plaintiff’s legitimate business without a seizure order.”

McRae’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit.