On 6 June 2023, Shein issued a letter before action to Temu alleging that Temu had copied thousands of product photographs from Shein’s UK website without permission. Shein required Temu to remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content by 9 June 2023. Proceedings were issued on 7 August 2023 and, on 13 August 2026, the High Court dismissed Shein’s copyright infringement claim. By trial, Shein had abandoned most of its sample claims.
The claim ultimately proceeded in relation to four employee works and one supplier work. The supplier work failed because the court found that consent had been given for the relevant photographs to be used. The remaining claims, concerning the four employee works, failed because infringement was not established under sections 17, 20 or 23 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The judgment is significant for copyright owners and online marketplaces because it highlights the evidential and practical difficulties involved in enforcing copyright at scale, alongside the substantive requirements for establishing platform liability.
First, the decision underlines the importance of proving copyright ownership. A significant feature of the litigation was Shein’s difficulty in establishing ownership and chain of title for supplier and agency photographs. Although, despite Shein encountering significant chain-of-title issues during the litigation, those issues were not ultimately what caused the surviving claims to fail.
Future claimants should nevertheless provide clear evidence of authorship, first ownership, ownership at the relevant time, and any assignment or transfer of rights. A claimant cannot rely on a bare assertion of ownership where title is disputed.
Secondly, the judgment emphasises the need for clear and workable takedown notices. Shein provided Temu with a list of 8,036 URLs identifying allegedly infringing listings, but numerous links to Shein’s comparison material contained errors, including links redirecting to error pages.
Comparison screenshots covered only 287 listings, requiring extensive manual comparisons for the remainder. Notices should contain sufficiently precise and substantiated information to enable a platform to assess alleged infringement without a detailed legal examination. In these circumstances, the court concluded that Temu had acted expeditiously.
Thirdly, the decision provides guidance on online marketplaces’ liability for third-party content. Shein abandoned its direct-copying allegation because Temu’s servers were outside the UK. Its section 17 case instead, concerned authorising users’ browser copies. Those temporary copies fell within section 28A, and authorisation was not established in any event. The section 20 claim failed because Temu had not deliberately intervened with the requisite knowledge to give the public access to protected works. Section 23 failed because Temu lacked knowledge or reason to believe that the photographs were infringing copies.
The court characterised Temu’s role in relation to the photographs as “mere technical, automatic and passive”. Had infringement otherwise been established, Temu would have been entitled to rely on the hosting defence under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. This does not provide blanket immunity: liability depends on the platform’s role, knowledge and response to notifications.
Finally, Temu succeeded on liability under Shein’s cross-undertakings in damages for wrongful takedowns under interim injunctions. Quantum remains to be determined. Rights holders should therefore consider the potential financial consequences of seeking interim relief.
The decision is a reminder that large-scale copyright enforcement requires more than identifying potentially infringing content. Rights holders must be ready to prove ownership, articulate their complaints with precision, and ensure that any claim against an intermediary is supported by evidence capable of satisfying the applicable liability thresholds. For online marketplaces, the judgment offers reassurance that a platform acting passively in relation to the relevant content, and responding appropriately to notifications, may be able to avoid liability.
A link to the Judgment can be found here: Roadget Business Pte Ltd and Shein Distribution UK Ltd v Whaleco UK Limited [2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch)
If you would like to find out about the best way to protect or enforce your copyright, or other intellectual property rights, please contact authors below.
We would like to thank Mikelene Brown for contributing to this article.
