Background

Shein alleged that its photographs appeared in listings created by independent merchants on Temu’s UK website. Its initial cease and desist letter identified over 8,000 listings and requested their removal within three working days. Temu reviewed approximately half individually before removing the remainder in bulk. Proceedings followed and ultimately concerned 2,559 listings (although only a sample was considered at trial).

Two interim injunctions also established procedures allowing Shein to notify Temu of further infringing content for removal.

Temu denied infringement, relying on s.28A CDPA and the Regulation 19 hosting defence. It also challenged Shein’s title to certain non-employee works and counterclaimed for losses arising from listings wrongly removed pursuant to the interim injunctions. A separate competition counterclaim will be heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in March 2027.

Chain of title

Shein encountered difficulties establishing ownership of third-party (non-employee) works and abandoned most of the sample claims. For the remaining supplier work, Shein did not acquire copyright title until after the claim was issued. However, Temu’s abuse of process argument failed because Shein did not have actual or blind-eye knowledge of the defect in title.

Infringement and defences

Shein’s original claim that Temu reproduced the photographs was not pursued because Temu’s servers were outside the UK. Shein instead alleged that Temu:

• authorised reproduction by UK users viewing the photographs online (s.17 CDPA); 
• communicated the photographs to the public (s.20); and
• exhibited or distributed the photographs whilst knowing or having reason to believe they were infringing copies (s.23). 

The s.17 claim failed because the s.28A temporary copies exception applied. The key finding was that the temporary copying involved in viewing the photographs did not have an “independent economic significance”. Users gained no economic advantage from the temporary copy distinct from viewing the photograph to inform a purchasing decision. Temu had also not authorised the infringement: it did not encourage, sanction or approve infringing content.

The ss.20 and 23 claims also failed. General knowledge that some merchant-uploaded photographs may infringe copyright was insufficient, and Temu had no knowledge or reason to believe that the specific photographs were infringing. Moreover, it removed the relevant listings before it had sufficient time to acquire that knowledge, so secondary infringement was not established.

The court held that Temu would in any event have benefited from the Regulation 19 hosting defence. Independent merchants uploaded the photographs in issue to the Temu platform, and Temu’s role was “technical, automatic and passive” (it did not engage in any active conduct in relation to the specific content in issue). It also lacked specific knowledge of the infringement and acted expeditiously to remove the content, following Shein’s notifications.

Temu also succeeded on its IP counterclaim under Shein’s cross-undertakings in damages. The interim injunctions were a dominant and effective cause of Temu’s losses from wrongly removed listings. Also, removing entire listings rather than replacing photographs with blank placeholders did not break the chain of causation or constitute a failure to mitigate loss.

Take-home points

The Shein v Temu dispute is a useful reminder that chain of title issues need to be thoroughly investigated and remedied before infringement is asserted. This is especially important where relevant works are created by suppliers, agencies or freelancers.

Whilst takedown procedures can resolve infringements quickly, notices should be sufficiently precise and substantiated. Rights holders should be able to provide clear information identifying both the infringement and their entitlement to the rights asserted, and be mindful of the fact that wrongful takedowns can expose a claimant to liability.

Finally, before alleging infringement in an online marketplace context, it is important to scrutinise whether the adverse party’s role is active or passive, and consider whether the hosting defence might apply. General commercial involvement or running an online platform as such is not necessarily enough to defeat the defence.  

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Decision level: High Court
Parties: Roadget Business Pte Ltd & Anor v Whaleco UK Ltd
Date: 13 August 2026
Citation: [2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch)
Decision: https://dycip.com/2026-ewhc-2165-ch