Shein previously accused Temu, the rival online retail site owned by PDD Holdings, of unlawfully using photographs of Shein’s own-brand clothing. It argued that Temu was copying images at scale to gain a competitive edge.
The lawsuit specifically concerned 2,559 product pages on Temu’s UK platform, comprising more than 2,200 photos taken by staff and hundreds more provided by suppliers and agencies.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Following multiple court orders, Temu deleted thousands of the disputed listings from its platform.
The case, heard in May 2026, forms one part of a global legal battle between the two companies, both of which have rapidly expanded into international markets with low-cost clothing and accessories.
In a written ruling issued this week, Judge Kelyn Bacon rejected Shein’s arguments, stating: “Temu did not know or have reason to believe that the photographs infringed Shein’s copyright.”
Judge Bacon emphasised that even if there had been copyright infringement, Temu would not be liable under UK law.
She pointed to Temu’s status as a marketplace hosting third-party sellers, noting it expressly prohibits merchants from uploading infringing content.
Shein’s original claim that Temu had directly reproduced its photos was not pursued at trial, since Temu’s servers are hosted outside the UK and any reproduction took place outside the country, the judgement confirmed.
Shein responds to Court’s ruling
Responding to the judgement, Shein shared the following statement with Just Style: “There is no dispute about Shein’s ownership of the thousands of photographs at the core of our claim. Even Temu acknowledges that it used thousands of images belonging to Shein to sell products on its website.
“Yet despite copying on an industrial scale, it has avoided liability in the UK simply because the servers supporting its UK website happen to sit in Ireland.
“We disagree with the Court’s narrow interpretation of a complex and evolving area of law. The result is a surprising one, and risks creating one rule for online platforms whose servers sit outside the UK and another rule for everyone else. We do not believe that is the right outcome for brands and rights holders seeking to protect their copyright online.”
Judge Bacon also ruled that, had infringement been proven, Temu could have relied on the “hosting defence,” which shields online platforms from liability provided they act only as intermediaries and lack actual knowledge of infringing material.
“In so far as any infringements could be established in this case, Temu did not have either actual knowledge of the infringements or awareness of facts or circumstances from which the infringements would have been apparent,” the ruling reads.
The judge further upheld Temu’s counterclaim for damages, finding Shein’s injunctions led Temu to remove listings related to images for which Shein had no copyright claim.
A separate trial is expected next year on Temu’s counterclaim that Shein violated competition law by tying suppliers to exclusive agreements.
What does this mean for online marketplaces?
The ruling also has practical implications for rights holders looking to take on online marketplaces.
Cassandra Hill, partner in Mishcon de Reya’s Intellectual Property Disputes, explains: “The key takeaway from this judgment is that platform liability will turn on what the marketplace actually did in relation to the specific content in dispute, rather than how involved or commercially controlling the platform may be more generally.
“Temu succeeded because the court found it had not selected, edited, endorsed or promoted the photographs at the centre of the claim, and could therefore be treated as a passive intermediary.”
Hill adds that the judgment should also serve as a reminder of the importance of securing clear evidence of IP ownership before taking legal action.
“Platforms need enough specific information to assess whether content is genuinely infringing, and issuing large numbers of takedown notices without a clear chain of title can create significant risks for the rights holder itself.”
The ruling comes amid reports that Shein is seeking a Hong Kong initial public offering that could value the company at more than $30bn.
