The two-week trial opened Monday. Shein’s complaint covers around 2,300 product images; Temu has abandoned its defence of those images and is countering with anti-competition claims.
Shein accused Temu of copyright infringement “on an industrial scale” as a two-week trial opened at London’s High Court on Monday.
Shein’s barrister, Benet Brandreth, told the court Temu used around 2,300 product photographs created by Shein employees to advertise look-alike clothing on Temu’s website.
“This was an attempt to steal a march on an existing participant in the market and Temu has sought to obtain, we say, an unfair advantage,” Brandreth said.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
Temu has effectively abandoned its defence of the disputed images, leaving the court to focus on damages, injunctive relief and the broader competition arguments.
Temu’s counter-claim alleges that Shein engages in anti-competitive practices by locking suppliers into exclusive manufacturing agreements that prevent the same workshops from selling to competing platforms.
The proceedings sit in the Business and Property Courts. The judge has scheduled two weeks for evidence; a ruling is unlikely before late summer.
The London case is the latest in a multi-jurisdictional litigation war between the two Chinese-founded platforms, which have also sued each other in the US, the EU and Singapore.
PDD Holdings, Temu’s parent company, is listed on the Nasdaq. Shein is preparing a public listing whose venue has shifted between Hong Kong and London under regulatory pressure.
The dispute is set against rising regulatory scrutiny on both sides. The UK Competition and Markets Authority has been investigating both companies on consumer-protection and pricing-transparency grounds since 2024.
The Financial Conduct Authority has separately reviewed Shein’s IPO disclosures. The Trump administration moved in February 2025 to close the US de minimis exemption, which had been central to both companies’ US growth model.
Shein’s commercial argument, in Brandreth’s framing, was that copying the images allowed Temu to publish complete product pages faster and at lower cost than the platform would otherwise have managed.
Temu’s competition counter-claim is asking the court to consider whether Shein’s exclusive-supplier arrangements constitute restraint of trade under UK law, and whether they should be unwound.
Neither company commented further outside court on Monday.
The hearing continues. The case is being followed by competition regulators in Brussels, Washington and London, and by both companies’ bankers in advance of Shein’s listing process.
