High Court rejects Shein’s infringement claims while Temu succeeds on counterclaim liability
Shein copyright claims against online retail platform Temu have been rejected by the High Court, with Mrs Justice Bacon also finding Temu’s intellectual property counterclaim succeeds on liability.
The judgment in Roadget Business PTE. Ltd and Shein Distribution UK Ltd v WhaleCo UK Limited, handed down on 13 August 2026, concerned allegations that Temu had infringed copyright in photographs used for Shein-branded fashion products. The case was heard in the Intellectual Property List of the High Court’s Business and Property Courts.
Shein’s claim originally covered 2,559 product listings on Temu’s UK website. It alleged that 2,285 listings used photographs taken by Shein employees, 263 used supplier photographs and 11 used agency photographs. By the trial, however, Shein had abandoned its claims concerning all agency works and all but one supplier work, leaving five sample works: four employee works and the Strawberry Nightdress supplier photograph.
The court found that Shein had copyright ownership and corresponding rights of action in the four employee works. In relation to the Strawberry Nightdress, however, Mrs Justice Bacon found that the photographs had been commissioned by Junwei Lin personally and were not specifically commissioned for Jiameiluo or Shein.
Before June 2024, Shein held only a non-exclusive licence to use those photographs and did not own the copyright or hold rights of action. Following the Framework Agreement between Roadget and Jiameiluo and the Agency Commissioning Agreement between Jiameiluo and photographer Yaqian Chang, Shein acquired copyright and sufficient equitable title to accrued rights of action to pursue the claim. The court rejected Temu’s argument that pursuing the claim amounted to an abuse of process.
The infringement claims nevertheless failed. For the Strawberry Nightdress, the court found that Mr Lin had consented to the photographs being used on the Sexy Secret Temu store.
More broadly, the court rejected Shein’s claims under sections 17, 20 and 23 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Under section 17, although users were inferred to have viewed the photographs, any temporary reproductions fell within section 28A and Temu had not authorised copyright infringement by users. The section 20 claim also failed because Temu’s conduct did not amount to a deliberate intervention, in full knowledge of the consequences, intended to give the public access to protected works. The section 23 claim failed because Temu did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the photographs were infringing copies before the relevant listings were removed.
The judgment also provides a significant practical point for copyright disputes involving online platforms. The court found that Temu’s removal of listings within two business days under the September 2023 injunction occurred before it had sufficient time to establish the knowledge required for section 23. The court also held that, had infringement been established, Temu would have satisfied the knowledge condition for the Regulation 19 hosting defence because it lacked actual knowledge or awareness of facts making infringement apparent and acted expeditiously when notified.
For solicitors advising copyright owners, the judgment underlines the importance of establishing and documenting chain of title before making infringement allegations or seeking take-down relief. In this case, Shein’s June 2023 letter before action listed 8,036 Temu URLs, yet the court found that Shein had not established ownership of the employee photographs at that stage and had not investigated title to supplier and agency photographs.
Temu’s counterclaim succeeded on liability in relation to losses arising from wrongful notifications under the September 2023 and February 2024 injunctions. The court will determine the amount of any loss at the third trial.