Roadget Bus. Pte. v. PDD Holdings Inc.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Writing for the Court: TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge
• Docket Number: Civil Action 24-2402 (TJK)
• Decision Date: 07 January 2026
• Citation: Roadget Bus. Pte. v. PDD Holdings Inc., Civil Action 24-2402 (TJK) (D. D.C. Jan 07, 2026)
• Parties: ROADGET BUSINESS PTE. LTD., Plaintiff, v. PDD HOLDINGS INC. et al., Defendants.

1

ROADGET BUSINESS PTE. LTD., Plaintiff, v. PDD HOLDINGS INC. et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 24-2402 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

January 7, 2026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge

Plaintiff known as Shein, operates an online marketplace that offers low-priced fashion and lifestyle products through a website and mobile application. Defendant WhaleCo Inc. runs a competing, discount-driven online platform-Temu-selling similar consumer goods. Each platform has accused the other of engaging in unlawful, multifaceted campaigns to interfere with the other's competitive posture. After WhaleCo sued Shein in a separate case before this Court, Shein now countersues WhaleCo and its corporate parent, PDD Holdings Inc. (“PDDH”) for various claims under federal and District of Columbia law. On Shein's telling, Temu owes its rapid commercial success in the United States to its relentless pursuit of low prices, made possible only by a scheme of trade secret theft, intellectual property right infringement, false advertising, and other unlawful acts. PDDH moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and WhaleCo moves to dismiss a sliver of Shein's 16-count complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons below, the Court will grant PDDH's motion and grant in part and deny in part WhaleCo's.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

According to the complaint, Shein is a global online fashion and lifestyle retailer that “has spent years” building its SHEIN brand into an international e-commerce platform offering a variety of fashion and other products through its website and mobile application, including in the United States. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1, 17. In May 2022, Shein's mobile app allegedly was the most downloaded app in the United States, id. ¶ 1, and as of the filing of the complaint, Shein had over 33 million followers on Instagram and nearly 10 million followers on TikTok, id. ¶ 57. Shein says it is “one of the most popular” online fashion and “lifestyle brands” worldwide. Id. ¶ 55.

Shein attributes much of its “success” to its ability to “anticipate and create consumer demand.” Compl. ¶ 45. It uses a “data-driven approach” to design and market its products, testing small batches of design items, monitoring customer feedback, and restocking products in high demand. Id. ¶ 2. That model, facilitated by a carefully cultivated supplier network, permits Shein to “quickly identify” and respond to “emerging trends” and “to keep prices low by minimizing excess inventory.” Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Shein allegedly captures information about its top-selling and most popular styles, along with internal pricing information, in a “highly confidential” dataset-its “Best Seller Data.” Id. ¶ 46-47. Shein also employs various creators who design its “on-trend, stylish products,” along with photographers who photograph them for display on its website and app, and Shein owns copyrights in both the photographs and the designs. Id. ¶¶ 50-52. And although Shein began by selling “affordable” clothing under the SHEIN brand only, it has since expanded its offerings to include accessories, beauty products, and home goods, which it sells both under the SHEIN brand and under “increasingly popular” affiliate brand names like ROMWE and LUVLETTE. Id. ¶ 56. Shein owns several trademark registrations for the SHEIN brand and its affiliate brands, see id. ¶¶ 60-62, and consumers allegedly associate all these brands with “the sale of high-quality fashion and home goods at a fair price,” id. ¶ 58.

In the fall of 2022, Defendant WhaleCo, Inc. launched its Temu-branded rival platform in the United States. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 64.^[1] Temu functions as an “online marketplace” where independent third-party sellers sell their own goods. Id. ¶ 64. Within two years, Temu gained 150 million users and generated a gross merchandise volume of $20 billion in just the first half of 2024. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. But according to the complaint, it did not earn its “foothold” in the U.S. market. Id. ¶ 6. Instead, it has allegedly “ripped off the SHEIN brand” and used a variety of “unlawful means” to compete with Shein. Id. ¶¶ 4, 64.

For example, Shein alleges that Temu has “stolen” Shein's Best Seller Data, shared it with hundreds of suppliers in an online chat, and then “directed” them “to copy” Shein's “most popular products” and sell knock-off versions on Temu. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 65, 69. It allegedly also used or “instructed” its sellers to use copyrighted images of Shein products as promotional images on the Temu website and app, id. ¶ 10, and “refuses” to let sellers “discontinue the sale of infringing products” on Temu, even when sellers request such removal, id. ¶ 81. Shein alleges, moreover, that Temu uses the SHEIN trademark (or close variations, like “She/in”) in online advertisements, including sponsored advertising on Google, which suggest that “authentic” Shein merchandise is sold on Temu, but when consumers click on the ads, they are directed to Temu's website, which offers no SHEIN-branded products for sale. Id. ¶¶ 11-12, 100-102. Thus, Temu purportedly misleads consumers to believe that it is associated with Shein-or, at a minimum, that Shein-branded products are sold on Temu. Id. ¶ 104. And at the same time, Temu drives consumer traffic away from Shein's platform. Id. ¶¶ 100, 106. Temu allegedly also “impersonat[es]” Shein on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), creating “fake” accounts that use the SHEIN mark-for instance, by using the handle @SHEINUSA-to “promote its own website” and to “trick consumers” into downloading its mobile app. Id. ¶¶ 107-08, 114-117. On top of that, Temu allegedly tries to “mimick[]” Shein's online marketing strategies-partnering with influencers and fashion bloggers to promote its brand. Id. ¶ 136-37. But “rather than merely promoting” its own brand, Temu has “instructed its paid” influencers to “disparage” Shein's products. Id. ¶¶ 13, 137. It has provided its influencers with “guidelines” requiring them to claim that Temu's products “are cheaper and of higher quality” than Shein's, which Shein says is “false.” Id. ¶¶ 13, 138. And “several” of them have allegedly followed those instructions. Id. ¶ 140. For example, one influencer (with over 137,000 followers) allegedly posted a series of pictures of herself wearing different Temu apparel with the caption, “Shein Alternatives, cheaper but way better quality! Check Temu.com out! So freakin cute and so freakin cheap!” Id. ¶¶ 141-42; ECF No. 1-23.

According to the complaint, Temu's business model depends on “squeez[ing] prices to rock bottom levels.” Compl. ¶ 77. It does so, says Shein, by effectively forcing its sellers to set below-cost prices, resulting not only in “minimal profit” to the sellers but also in losses to Temu. Id. ¶ 78. Temu allegedly “minimizes these losses by selling infringing, counterfeit, and sub-standard products.” Id. ¶ 7. And, according to Shein, any remaining losses are “absorbed” by WhaleCo's parent company, PDDH-a Cayman Island corporation with its principal place of business in Ireland. Id. ¶¶ 18, 22, 78. Indeed, Shein alleges that PDDH not only “subsidize[s]” Temu's unprofitable business model but also “operates and controls” Temu. Id. ¶¶ 18, 24. That is, on Shein's account, WhaleCo operates the Temu platform in the United States “under the direction and control and as an agent and alter ego of PDD.” Id. ¶ 19. PDD also “own[s]” and “control[s],” directly or indirectly, a large web of other companies (“Temu Group Defendants”), id. ¶¶ 20, 26 and, according to the complaint, PDD “operates the Temu Website and App through” these companies, id. ¶ 26; see id. ¶ 29. Temu, Shein says, “relies” on PDDH “for its business model”; its product pricing does not “reflect the cost of marketing and shipping” its products, and the only reason it can offer “very low prices” is that PDDH swoops in to cover its “massive” losses. Id. ¶ 24; p. 2.

B. Procedural Background

In December 2023, WhaleCo sued Shein and one of its subsidiaries in this Court, asserting claims for, among other things, copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, trade dress infringement, and various antitrust violations. See WhaleCo Inc. v. Shein Tech. LLC, No. 23-cv-3706 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2023), ECF No. 1.

Soon after, Shein sued WhaleCo, PDDH, and the Temu Group Defendants, to hold these defendants “accountable” for a systematic campaign of allegedly unlawful conduct designed to unfairly compete with Shein in the U.S. market. ECF No. 1 at 1.^[2] Shein asserts federal claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (Count 1); copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and inducement of copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Counts 3-6); trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, and vicarious trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Count 7-10); trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (Count 11); unfair competition and false designations of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) (Count 12); and false advertising and contributory false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) (Counts 14-15). Compl. ¶¶ 147-56, 167-245, 254-66. Shein also brings claims for trade-secret misappropriation and unfair competition under D.C. law (Counts 2 and 13). Id. ¶¶ 157-66, 246-53. Finally, it asserts one claim for product disparagement and trade libel under Massachusetts law (Count 16). Id. ¶¶ 267-71.

PDDH and WhaleCo each move to dismiss. See ECF Nos. 36 38. PDDH moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. WhaleCo, for its part,...