The long-standing high-profile dispute originated from the 2013 acquisition of a majority interest in "South Beauty" by the private equity firm CVC. Following the discovery of fictitious transactions, the Petitioners commenced arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and obtained awards totaling approximately USD 142.46 million in April 2019.

Through global asset tracing, Petitioners discovered that the respondent, Zhang Lan, had spent nearly USD 30 million at an auction in May 2014 to acquire two world-class paintings. In November 2019, Petitioners applied for an attachment of these paintings in New York.

In March 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) officially found that Zhang Lan’s transfer of the artwork constituted a fraudulent conveyance. The Court confirmed the final attachment order, allowing CVC to proceed with the judicial sale of the paintings to satisfy the outstanding debt.

(Source: Public Court Records of the U.S. District Court for the SDNY)

I. The Legal Basis of Rights

1. The New York Convention: This enforcement case was adjudicated under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"), as incorporated into Chapter 2 of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
2. Nature of Summary Proceeding: The Court emphasized that the confirmation of a foreign arbitral award is designed to be a "summary proceeding." Its core intent is to avoid re-litigating the merits of the case under international comity, except in the extremely limited circumstances of statutory defenses provided under the New York Convention.

II. Respondent’s Core Defenses Rejected

During the proceedings, the respondent raised several jurisdictional and procedural objections:

• Forum Non Conveniens: Asserting that New York was an improper venue and that the enforcement matter should be heard in China.
• Convention Defenses: Claiming that the appointment of CIETAC arbitrators did not comply with the parties' original arbitration agreement.
• Ownership Dispute: Insisting that she remained the rightful and lawful owner of the paintings, shielded by asset structures.

III. Key Findings of the SDNY Judgment

• Confirmation of Awards: The SDNY Court rejected all of Zhang’s defenses and ruled that the CIETAC arbitral awards are confirmed and fully enforceable within the Southern District of New York.
• Comity and Deference to the Seat of Arbitration: The Court declined to revisit procedural objections already thoroughly reviewed and rejected by Chinese courts, reaffirming that the courts at the seat of arbitration are best suited to interpret their own laws.
• Advancing Asset Liquidation: The Court directed Petitioners to file formal motions regarding the turnover of the world-class paintings and the appointment of a receiver to finalize the asset liquidation.

IV. Strategic Insights for Cross-Border Legal Practice

• The Limits of Asset "Firewalls": Utilizing shell companies, offshore trusts, or nominee structures to hold physical assets (such as high-value artwork or luxury real estate) has inherent limitations when facing aggressive judicial "piercing" in global enforcement proceedings.
• Globalization of Aggressive Asset Tracing: From Christie’s and Sotheby's auction records to offshore trust disclosures, the "look-through" tracing capabilities of professional legal and forensic teams have far exceeded traditional expectations.
• The "Fast Track" for International Judgment Confirmation: Leveraging the New York Convention in sophisticated legal jurisdictions (e.g., New York, London, Hong Kong) typically allows for expedited summary proceedings, drastically lowering the time cost of cross-border collection.
• Strategic Value of Pre-Judgment Attachment: Initiating an attachment of assets under the local laws of the enforcement jurisdiction prior to formal award confirmation is a vital strategy to prevent asset dissipation and ensure that a legal victory translates into actual financial recovery.

(Source: people.cn)

Conclusion

Cross-border legal disputes often involve a chain of complex issues, including the synchronization of procedures across different jurisdictions, the piercing of offshore structures, and sophisticated evidentiary preservation. If you or your enterprise encounter such global asset or compliance challenges, we invite you to contact the international legal team at NEO-ARK Law Firm for professional consultation.

LMGM, the global intellectual property rights management entity for international football icon Lionel Messi, has officially initiated a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The litigation primarily targets a multitude of Chinese merchants operating on major cross-border e-commerce platforms, including Temu and Walmart. The Plaintiff alleges that the relevant merchants have engaged in the unauthorized sale of counterfeit products, constituting trademark infringement of the “MESSI” marks and unfair competition, thereby resulting in significant detriment to the global goodwill and reputation of the Messi brand.

The Legal Basis of Rights

LMGM has lawfully obtained an exclusive license to use the "MESSI" trademark in the United States. Under the US Lanham Act, the proprietor of a registered trademark enjoys exclusive rights to use that mark; any unauthorized use of an identical or similar mark on the same or similar goods, which creates a likelihood of confusion or misrepresentation as to the source or affiliation of the goods among the relevant public, constitutes trademark infringement.

（Source: Public Court Records of the U.S. District Court for the SDNY）

Core Legal Claims

1. Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting: Defendants engaged in large-scale unauthorized use of the "MESSI" trademark on e-commerce platforms to sell counterfeit goods.
2. False Designation of Origin: Defendants’ misleading online practices, including the imitation of genuine products and deceptive marketing, are highly likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the source or authorization of the products.
3. Unfair Competition: By leveraging online platforms and search mechanisms to divert consumers, Defendants unlawfully exploit Plaintiffs’ global goodwill.
4. Willful Infringement: Defendants acted with clear knowledge and bad faith, causing ongoing harm to the brand’s commercial interests.

Authentic vs. Counterfeit

*Exemplars of Genuine Products and Images Incorporating the MESSI Trademark

(Source: Public Court Records of the U.S. District Court for the SDNY）

Exemplars of Counterfeit Products Sold by Defendants

(Source: Public Court Records of the U.S. District Court for the SDNY）

Prayer for Relief

Based on the foregoing infringing conduct, LMGM seeks the following legal remedies:

• Cease and Desist: Defendants must immediately stop all unauthorized use of the "MESSI" trademark, including the sale, marketing, and distribution of counterfeit goods.
• Platform Enforcement: Plaintiffs request that relevant e-commerce platforms remove infringing listings and disable associated store accounts to prevent continued infringement.
• Monetary Damages: Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of profits and compensation for losses, or alternatively, statutory damages of up to USD 2,000,000 per infringement, along with attorneys’ fees and costs.
• Injunctions: Plaintiffs request temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions to fully restrain ongoing infringement.

NEO-ARK Tip: Trademark compliance in cross-border e-commerce has entered an era of strict, zero-tolerance regulation. Respecting the boundaries of international intellectual property rights is no longer optional—it is the ultimate cornerstone of a sustainable global business.