Shein Loses UK Copyright Case Against Temu Over Product Photos Posted by Sellers

Shein has lost a UK copyright case against rival online marketplace Temu after a High Court judge rejected its attempt to hold the company responsible for copyrighted clothing photographs uploaded by third-party sellers.

Mrs Justice Kelyn Bacon ruled on August 13 that Temu had not authorized sellers to infringe Shein's copyright and did not have the knowledge required for other forms of liability. The judge also found that Temu could rely on legal protections available to online services that host material supplied by users.

Shein accused Temu of widespread infringement involving photographs used to advertise clothing sold on its websites. The dispute originally covered thousands of Temu listings, although the case was later narrowed and tried using a small group of representative images.

At trial, Shein argued that Temu played a sufficiently active role in its marketplace to be responsible for sellers using protected photographs. Temu maintained that merchants created their own listings and that its policies prohibited them from uploading material that violated another party's intellectual property rights.

Copyright law can reach beyond the person who directly makes an unauthorized copy. Under the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, a copyright owner can also bring a claim against someone who authorizes another person to carry out an act reserved for the copyright holder. Operating a service where infringement occurs, though, does not by itself mean the provider authorized the conduct. Courts can consider the level of control over users and whether the service effectively permitted or encouraged the unlawful activity.

Bacon found that Temu had not crossed that line. Its marketplace gave merchants the technical ability to upload photographs, but the company prohibited infringing material and had not given sellers permission to violate copyright.

UK law also provides some online services with protection from liability for information stored at a user's request. Under the hosting provisions of the Electronic Commerce Regulations, a service may qualify when it does not have actual knowledge of unlawful material, is not aware of facts that make the violation apparent, and acts quickly to remove or disable access once it gains the required knowledge.

The judge found Temu did not know that the photographs at issue were infringing before receiving notice and acted promptly after learning about challenged listings. Bacon concluded that the company could have relied on the hosting protection even if Shein had otherwise established infringement by the merchants.

Ownership of the photographs created another problem for parts of Shein's case. A company seeking to enforce copyright generally must show that it owns the protected work or has received the rights needed to bring a claim. That can require tracing ownership when photographs were created by employees, contractors, suppliers or other businesses rather than by the company seeking to enforce them.

Some of the disputed images had different ownership histories, and the court found that Shein did not own the copyright in every photograph for which listings had previously been removed. Temu had been required under earlier court orders to take down certain material while the dispute was pending.

Parties seeking temporary court orders can be required to promise compensation if the restrictions are later found to have been wrongly imposed. Bacon ruled that Temu is entitled to seek losses connected to certain removals involving images Shein did not own. The amount of any compensation will be determined separately.

Another infringement theory concerned whether Temu itself had reproduced Shein's photographs. Shein did not pursue that claim at trial after the location of the relevant servers created a territorial problem under UK copyright law, with the alleged copying occurring outside the United Kingdom.

Shein said it disagreed with the court's interpretation of the law and maintained that thousands of photographs it owned had appeared on Temu. The ruling resolves the copyright portion of the companies' UK litigation but does not end their broader legal fight.

Separate competition claims remain before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Temu alleges that Shein violated UK competition law through restrictions involving suppliers, allegations Shein contests. Trial on those claims is scheduled to begin March 3, 2027.