The online fast-fashion race has reached the courts. Shein sued Temu, alleging that Temu allowed its sellers to use Shein’s product photographs to promote similar items, and that this amounted to large-scale copyright infringement.
The English High Court dismissed the claim, holding that Temu did not know of, and did not encourage, the alleged infringements, and was therefore able to rely on the hosting defence. Moreover, Temu’s counterclaim for compensation was accepted in relation to content removals carried out at Shein’s request, concerning photographs for which Shein had not proven ownership of the rights. The decision highlights how critical it is for brand owners to verify the chain of title in their product photographs in advance, and not to assume that a photograph belongs to them simply because it appears on their website.
The English High Court’s decision in the dispute between “Shein” and “Temu” is an important reminder for brand owners, online marketplaces and digital enforcement teams: enforcing copyright online is not simply a matter of identifying similar content and filing a request to remove the allegedly infringing listing.
When a brand owner seeks to remove content from an online marketplace, it must first ensure that it actually owns the relevant rights, that the alleged infringement is properly substantiated, and that the request is directed to the right party. At the same time, online marketplaces are not automatically immune from liability for content uploaded by sellers. In appropriate cases, however, they may be able to rely on hosting or intermediary protections, particularly where they had no actual knowledge of the infringement and no active involvement in the content.
The court dismissed Shein’s copyright infringement claim against Temu concerning product photographs uploaded by third-party sellers to Temu’s platform. In addition, Temu succeeded in its counterclaim for compensation in connection with listings that were removed following complaints by Shein, where the court found that Shein did not own the relevant rights in the photographs.
The decision is particularly significant because it sits at the intersection of three practical issues: copyright ownership in product photographs, online marketplace liability for seller content, and the risks associated with overly broad takedown campaigns.
Shein and Temu, two major fast-fashion and e-commerce platforms, operate in an intensely competitive market. Their dispute is not limited to the English proceedings, but forms part of a wider global legal battle across several jurisdictions.
In the English proceedings, Shein argued that Temu allowed widespread use of Shein’s product photographs to promote similar products on Temu’s platform. Shein described the alleged infringements as large-scale, and argued that the use of its photographs enabled Temu to benefit from the investment and goodwill of a more established competitor.
Temu, for its part, argued that responsibility for the content lay with the third-party sellers, not with the platform itself.
A significant part of the proceedings also concerned the scope of Shein’s rights in the photographs on which it relied. That issue proved central, because when enforcing copyright in product photographs, it is not enough to show that the photograph appeared on the brand owner’s website. The brand owner must prove that it owns the copyright, or has an appropriate licence allowing it to enforce those rights.
The English High Court dismissed Shein’s claim. The court held that Temu had not infringed Shein’s copyright and that, even if infringement had occurred, Temu would not have been liable in the circumstances.
The key finding was that Temu had not authorised, encouraged or been aware of the alleged infringements by users of the site. This goes to the heart of platform liability: is the mere appearance of content on an online marketplace enough to impose liability on the platform, or must there be evidence of knowledge, involvement, encouragement or a more significant degree of control?
The court also accepted Temu’s position regarding the hosting defence or intermediary liability. In other words, where a platform acts as a host for content uploaded by third-party sellers, and does not have sufficient knowledge of the specific infringement, it may be able to rely on a defence against liability.
Alongside the dismissal of Shein’s claim, the court accepted Temu’s counterclaim and found that Temu was entitled to compensation for listings that had been removed following Shein’s complaints. Those removals were based on copyright allegations concerning photographs in which Shein had failed to prove sufficient ownership. The amount of compensation has not yet been determined.
One of the most important lessons from the decision is that it is not enough to assume that a product photograph published on a brand’s website necessarily belongs to that brand. Under copyright law, particularly where product photographs are created at scale, the chain of title is critical.
The practical questions are simple, but important:
For brand owners, the practical message is clear. Before launching a broad enforcement campaign, especially against a major platform, they should prepare a properly documented rights file. That file should include photography agreements, assignments of rights, work orders, supplier terms, documentation of the creation of the photographs and, where necessary, statements or evidence showing who created the photographs and who owns the rights.
Without such documentation, a brand owner may find itself in a difficult position: not only may its claim fail, but it may also face claims by the platform or by sellers harmed by wrongful removals.
The decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between an independent seller and the platform on which that seller operates. On online marketplaces, millions of listings may be uploaded by third-party sellers. The legal question is not only whether infringing content appeared on the site, but whether the platform itself should be held liable for it.
The court was not persuaded that Temu had authorised, encouraged or been aware of the specific infringements. This is an important point. To impose liability on a platform, it will usually not be enough to show that the platform derived commercial benefit from the existence of listings, or that it had the technical ability to remove them. The level of knowledge, control, involvement and response to takedown notices must be examined.
For brand owners, this means that enforcement against platforms requires focus and precision. A general notice alleging thousands of infringements may be less effective than a properly structured notice that includes a specific URL, the original photograph, the allegedly infringing photograph, proof of ownership and a clear explanation of why the use amounts to copying of a protected photograph and not merely a similar product.
The hosting defence, or intermediary liability protection, is based on the idea that platforms hosting user content should not automatically be liable for everything uploaded by third parties, provided that they act as neutral intermediaries, do not have actual knowledge of the infringement, and do not play an active role in relation to the infringing content.
But this does not mean that platforms are always protected. The defence may weaken where the platform receives a specific and substantiated notice and fails to act; where it encourages sellers to upload infringing content; where it is actively involved in editing the content, selecting photographs or promoting particular listings; or where it ignores a clear and repeated pattern of infringement.
For platforms, therefore, the decision is not a licence for indifference. On the contrary, it highlights the importance of clear notice-and-takedown procedures, documented complaint handling, binding seller terms of use, and the ability to show that the platform acted reasonably once it received concrete information about an infringement.
The decision is particularly important in relation to broad content removal campaigns. Brand owners often act quickly and at scale when they identify hundreds or thousands of similar listings. From a business perspective, that is understandable: market harm can develop quickly, and the response needs to be efficient.
But the decision is a reminder that speed is not a substitute for accuracy. A takedown request that is not properly substantiated may harm a legitimate seller, remove a non-infringing product, or rely on rights that the brand owner does not actually hold.
This risk is not theoretical. Where a takedown campaign is perceived as overly broad, aggressive or insufficiently accurate, it may itself become the subject of a counterclaim or a claim for compensation. Brand owners should therefore treat every takedown notice as a legally significant document. It should include a clear factual and legal basis, not merely a general assertion of “copyright infringement”. The broader the campaign, the more important it is to build an internal review process before notices are sent.
The decision offers several practical lessons for brand owners operating in online marketplaces:
From the perspective of online marketplaces, the decision underscores the importance of sound content governance.
A platform should ensure that its terms of use require sellers not to upload infringing content, not to use photographs in which they have no rights, and not to infringe third-party intellectual property rights.
In addition, there should be a clear mechanism for receiving, reviewing, documenting and escalating takedown notices. A platform that receives a specific and substantiated complaint should act within a reasonable time, or at least be able to show that it conducted a genuine and documented review process.
Platforms should also establish mechanisms for dealing with repeat infringers, including warnings, suspension, removal of listings, account termination or other restrictions. Repeat infringer and seller enforcement mechanisms may be particularly important where the platform seeks to show that it is not indifferent to infringement.
Finally, platforms should keep records of how complaints are handled. In the event of a dispute, the ability to show when a complaint was received, what was reviewed, who handled it, what was removed and what was not removed can be highly significant.
The decision should not be read too broadly.
It does not mean that online marketplaces are always immune from liability for seller content. Where there is actual knowledge, disregard of specific notices, encouragement of infringement, significant control over content, or active involvement, the result may be different.
Nor does the decision mean that brand owners should avoid takedown campaigns. On the contrary, in many cases takedown requests are an essential and effective tool for protecting rights. The problem is not the use of takedown mechanisms, but using them in a way that is inaccurate, insufficiently substantiated or too broad.
Finally, it should not be assumed that every similarity between product photographs amounts to copyright infringement. Copyright protects the original expression in the photograph, not necessarily the product being photographed, the idea of the photograph, or a general commercial style. Where product photographs are similar, it is therefore important to examine carefully what exactly has been copied.
In the fast-moving world of online commerce, where thousands of products and photographs are uploaded every day, effective enforcement cannot rely on speed and scale alone. It must also be grounded in precision, documentation and a proper understanding of the limits of each player’s responsibility in the digital chain.
