Shein and Temu, two of the biggest names in online fast fashion, have been fighting a copyright dispute in the English courts since 2023. Shein alleged that Temu had built its UK product pages using photographs taken for Shein’s own website by its employees, agencies and suppliers. Some 2,559 product listings on Temu’s UK platform were in issue.

While Shein successfully secured interim orders in 2023 and 2024 that led to thousands of listings being removed from Temu’s UK platform, the picture at the full hearing looked very different. In its judgment of 13 August 2026 in Roadget v Whaleco [2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch), the High Court dismissed Shein’s copyright claims and held Shein liable in damages to Temu for listings that had been taken down under those interim orders. What drove this outcome? Three points stand out for any rights holder policing online sales.

1. Chain of title is the foundation

It is easy to assume that a photograph, design or article created for your business is naturally yours. In copyright, that is not always the case, and it is not a surprise you want after issuing a takedown notice. Shein’s claim originally covered all 2,559 listings. To keep the trial manageable, it proceeded based on a sample of twenty, which was then narrowed to just five at the hearing, as Shein abandoned the rest after chain of title difficulties emerged in relation to the supplier and agency created works. Among the remaining five photos, four employee photographs did not establish infringement against Temu, and one supplier image failed on consent, as the merchant who had commissioned the shoot had agreed to its use on Temu.

2. Passive marketplaces are not publishers

The court accepted that Temu’s role in the disputed listings was of a “mere technical, automatic and passive nature”. The analysis is content specific: not whether the marketplace looks active in general (through promotions, pricing controls or delivery services), but whether it played an active role in the particular listings in dispute. General awareness that some uploads might infringe is not the same as knowledge of specific infringing content. That was central to the failure of the infringement claim on the four employee photographs above.

3. Takedowns carry their own risk

Under interim injunctions, Temu had been required to remove listings that Shein notified, and Shein had given the usual cross undertaking in damages when it obtained those orders. Following the trial it was held that a number of those listings should not have been taken down: some concerned works that Shein later abandoned or lost on, some were notified outside the scope of the orders, and others were notified without the detail the orders required. Shein was found liable in damages to Temu for those wrongful takedowns, with the amount to be assessed at a later hearing. A high volume enforcement campaign is therefore only as safe as the evidence and paperwork supporting it.

Key takeaways

Before firing off the next takedown notice, rights holders should:

• Verify ownership for every image, video and design you plan to rely on, and close any gaps in the paper trail.
• Review the wider IP portfolio: trade marks, design rights or database rights may offer a stronger route than copyright.
• Calibrate the volume of any takedown campaign to the strength of the evidence, and put the platform properly on notice with specific detail.

If you would like advice on verifying your copyright ownership or enforcing your intellectual property rights, please contact a member of our Intellectual Property team.