The fast fashion feud reshaping intellectual property law

The rivalry between SHEIN and TEMU has evolved far beyond a competition over cheap clothing and online shopping. What began as a race to dominate ultra‑fast fashion has developed into a globe‑spanning dispute over intellectual property, with both companies accusing each other of copyright infringement, trade‑secret misuse, unfair competition, and manipulation of legal processes. At its core, the conflict reflects deeper tensions within global e‑commerce, where unprecedented speed, scale, and low prices increasingly collide with legal regimes designed to protect creativity, branding, and commercial innovation.

Although SHEIN and TEMU operate under distinct business models, they compete aggressively across the same international markets. SHEIN designs and sells fashion products under its own brand and trademarks, relying on rapid production cycles and data‑driven trend forecasting to bring items to market at extraordinary speed. TEMU, owned by PDD Holdings, operates primarily as an online marketplace, connecting third‑party sellers directly with consumers worldwide. Despite these structural differences, the companies overlap heavily across America, Europe, and parts of Asia, where demand for inexpensive apparel has surged.

As this competition intensified, intellectual property disputes quickly moved to the center of the rivalry. In 2023, TEMU initiated legal proceedings against SHEIN in the US, alleging that SHEIN had issued thousands of copyright takedown notices to remove competing listings. TEMU accused SHEIN of misusing intellectual property rights, engaging in coercive supplier practices, and making misrepresentations to the US Copyright Office. The following year, SHEIN responded with a lawsuit of its own, alleging that TEMU encouraged sellers to copy SHEIN products, distribute counterfeit goods, and infringe copyrights on a systemic scale. SHEIN further claimed that TEMU exercised significant control over sellers, pricing, and product listings (behavior that, it argued, went beyond the role of a passive marketplace) while facilitating the sale of infringing goods. The lawsuit also raised serious trade‑secret concerns, alleging that a former SHEIN employee had transferred confidential business information to TEMU.

This escalating legal battle reached a critical point in 2025, when a US judge dismissed key elements of TEMU’s case while allowing several intellectual property claims to proceed. The Court rejected TEMU’s antitrust claims and anti‑competitive conduct on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the alleged conduct occurred outside the US and therefore fell outside the scope of US law. Crucially, however, the Court allowed TEMU’s intellectual property claims to continue, including allegations of copyright infringement and claims that SHEIN had knowingly issued false copyright takedown notices.

Copyright infringement, particularly in relation to creative content and product imagery, remains a central battleground. In the UK, SHEIN has recently brought a significant claim before the High Court, accusing TEMU sellers of reproducing thousands of copyrighted product photographs “on an industrial scale.” According to SHEIN, these images were copied directly from its platform and reused to sell imitation goods, enabling sellers to benefit from SHEIN’s investments in photography, branding, and consumer trust. Because photographs are protected under copyright law, the case focuses on unauthorized reproduction of original visual material rather than on the legality of selling similar‑looking clothing. SHEIN’s claims also extend to apparel graphics, textile prints, and illustrations – areas where fashion usually enjoys stronger legal protection than basic garment designs.

TEMU denies any wrongdoing and argues that SHEIN is using litigation as a competitive weapon. It contends that SHEIN has weaponized intellectual property law by submitting large numbers of allegedly unjustified takedown notices to disrupt competition. A central issue in the UK case is platform liability: TEMU maintains that responsibility for infringing content rests with independent merchants and that it operates merely as a neutral intermediary. SHEIN disputes this characterization, urging the Court to find that TEMU actively enabled sellers to exploit copyrighted materials rather than simply hosting their listings.

Beyond the courtroom, both companies continue to face criticism from independent designers and artists who accuse them of copying creative work. Online communities frequently report discovering unauthorized reproductions on either platform, often reappearing shortly after takedown. While anecdotal, these accounts fuel a widespread perception that in ultra‑fast e‑commerce environments, copying often moves faster than enforcement.

There is also a notable irony in SHEIN’s position. A company long accustomed to defending itself against intellectual property claims from designers and established brands such as H&M is now using the same legal playbook offensively against its rival TEMU. It reflects a broader shift in modern commerce. Intellectual property is no longer just a shield against copying, but increasingly a weapon used to entrench market power and shape competitive dynamics. Cases like this are a reminder of why it’s worth having strong IP attorneys/lawyers when markets become this competitive, legal strategy becomes business strategy.

Ultimately, the SHEIN–TEMU dispute is about far more than fashion. It exposes the difficulty of regulating global digital commerce across complex supply chains and multiple legal systems, while forcing courts to confront how intellectual property should function in platform‑driven markets. As litigation continues on multiple fronts, the outcome may shape future standards for copyright enforcement, marketplace accountability, and competitive conduct. Whatever the final verdicts, the battle has already established itself as one of the defining intellectual property disputes of modern retail.

The Trademark Lawyer magazine reached out to Temu for a statement

A spokesperson from Temu said: “Shein’s allegations in the Opening Statement conveniently omit several critical developments in the ongoing proceedings. As of April 2026, the Court ordered summary judgment against Shein for 75% of the copyright infringement claims due to a lack of arguable case. After wrongfully pursuing Temu in the UK for more than two and a half years, the Court has ordered Shein to compensate Temu for the costs of the abandoned claims. Temu is also pursuing an abuse of process case against Shein on the basis that Shein pursued the case with this knowledge as part of a multi-pronged strategy to disrupt Temu’s business and stifle legitimate competition.” 

← Back to News