Shein has suffered a major defeat in its bitter legal battle with rival Temu after a London High Court judge ruled against its claims that the e-commerce platform was responsible for the alleged misuse of its fashion photographs.
The case centred on accusations that Temu sellers had used thousands of Shein images to market clothing on the platform, including products Shein claimed were copies of its own designs. Shein had accused Temu of copyright infringement 'on an industrial scale', arguing that the rival marketplace had allowed sellers to use its photographs to 'piggy-back' on a more established competitor.
But Mrs Justice Kelyn Bacon ruled in Temu's favour, finding that the platform had not authorised or knowingly allowed the specific copyright infringements alleged by Shein. The judgment represents a significant setback for Shein and provides an important ruling on when an online marketplace can be held responsible for material uploaded by third-party sellers.
Shein Claimed Thousands of Photos Were Misused
Shein's case focused on photographs created to showcase its clothing online. The fashion giant alleged that Temu sellers had taken images from its website and used them to advertise similar or copied products on the rival platform.
At the start of the trial in May, Shein's lawyer Benet Brandreth told the High Court that the alleged conduct was an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in the fast-fashion market.
'This was an attempt to steal a march on an existing participant in the market and Temu has sought to obtain, we say, an unfair advantage,' he told the court.
The allegations were particularly striking because the dispute was not simply about whether individual sellers had copied photographs. Shein wanted Temu itself to be held responsible, arguing that the platform had gone beyond acting as a neutral intermediary.
Temu rejected the accusations, maintaining that independent merchants were responsible for their own listings. Its lawyers argued that Shein was using copyright litigation to gain a competitive advantage rather than simply to protect its intellectual property.
One example considered in the proceedings involved a product known as the 'Strawberry Nightdress'. Shein had removed the item from its own website after poor sales, before a supplier later listed it on Temu using photographs associated with the Shein listing.
Judge Sides With Temu in Major Marketplace Ruling
Mrs Justice Bacon ultimately rejected Shein's attempt to establish Temu's liability for the alleged infringements.
The judge found that Temu had neither authorised nor knowingly allowed the specific infringements at issue. The platform was also able to rely on a hosting defence available to online services in the circumstances of the case. The judgment additionally found that, in some respects, Shein's copyright claims faced jurisdictional difficulties because Temu's relevant servers were located in Ireland.
The ruling was not entirely without consequences for Shein. Temu succeeded in a counterclaim over product listings that had been removed following Shein's copyright complaints, with damages to be determined later.
That counterclaim adds another twist to an already bitter rivalry between the two fast-fashion giants, which have faced off in legal disputes in multiple countries.
The UK case also extends beyond copyright. Temu has separately alleged that Shein breached competition law by tying suppliers to exclusive agreements, with that part of the dispute due to proceed to trial.
For Shein, however, the immediate result is clear: its attempt to make Temu legally responsible for the alleged misuse of its fashion photographs has failed. For the wider online retail industry, the ruling could prove equally important, as marketplaces continue to grapple with where responsibility lies when millions of third-party listings appear on their platforms.
