SHEIN v Temu: copyright chain of title lessons

On 13 August 2026 the High Court of England and Wales dismissed SHEIN’s copyright claim against Temu over product photographs used on Temu’s UK marketplace. The final ruling turned mainly on infringement and platform liability, but copyright chain of title shaped the whole case: SHEIN dropped 15 of the 20 sample works before trial, mostly photos supplied by manufacturers and agencies, once it examined how it had acquired them. It is a warning for any brand using supplier or freelance imagery.

Key takeaways

The court rejected all of SHEIN’s infringement theories and found that Temu would in any event have been protected by the hosting defence.
For the one supplier photo set left at trial, SHEIN held only a non-exclusive licence and no right to sue until a later written agreement in June 2024.
SHEIN’s mass take-down notices did not say who owned each photo or on what basis, so they did not give Temu knowledge of any specific infringement.
Temu’s counterclaim for wrongful take-downs under SHEIN’s undertakings in damages succeeded on liability; quantum is for a later trial.

What did the court decide in Roadget v Whaleco?

In Roadget Business Pte Ltd and Shein Distribution UK Ltd v Whaleco UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch), Mrs Justice Bacon tried a claim covering 2,559 Temu listings by reference to a sample. She found no infringement on any of SHEIN’s three theories: temporary copies made by UK users viewing the images were permitted and not authorised by Temu; Temu did not knowingly intervene to give the public access to protected works; and it had no reason to believe the photos were infringing copies before the listings came down. The supplier photo claim also failed because the supplier had consented to their use on Temu. Had there been infringement, the hosting defence for platforms storing third-party content would have applied.

How did chain of title narrow SHEIN’s case?

The judgment sets out how ownership problems surfaced step by step:

Date	Event (as recorded in the judgment)
6 June 2023	Letter before action listing 8,036 Temu URLs and claiming copyright in all photos on SHEIN’s site.
13 July 2023	The SHEIN employer company in China assigns copyright in employee photos to Roadget, more than a month after the letter.
February 2024	A new interim order requires SHEIN to show the author, the first owner and the chain of title for supplier and agency photos; supplier warranties alone are not enough.
10 June 2024	The court confirms that “simple assertions” of a chain of title are insufficient. No further supplier or agency photos are notified.
March-April 2026	SHEIN abandons all agency sample works and all but one supplier work; judgment is entered for Temu on 15 samples.

SHEIN accepted that when it sent the letter it did not know whether it owned the supplier and agency photos, and that it did not yet own the employee photos.

The freelance photos: a licence, not an assignment

The surviving supplier work, the “Strawberry Nightdress”, was photographed in June 2023 by a freelance photographer and model commissioned by the supplier’s manager. Under UK law the photographer was first owner, and an assignment is only effective “in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor” (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 90(3)). There was no written contract with her. The court found that she gave the manager a general permission to use the images, not a licence tied to his company or to SHEIN. SHEIN therefore had only a non-exclusive licence until June 2024, when later agreements gave it title and the right to sue for past acts. The court also found that the manager had consented to his cousin’s Temu store using the same images.

Why the notices did not defeat the hosting defence

The judge applied the CJEU’s test that a notice must be precise and substantiated enough for the platform to see the illegality without a detailed legal examination. SHEIN’s letter gave no basis for its ownership of each photo and attached comparisons for only a small fraction of them. In the EU, the same logic now sits in the Digital Services Act: hosting providers are not liable if they lack knowledge or act expeditiously (art. 6), and notices should be sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated (art. 16) (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065).

What this means for your business

Check title before you enforce. Know the author, the first owner and every transfer for the images you plan to notify or sue on.
Get written assignments from photographers, agencies and suppliers when the work is delivered. In Spain, every assignment must be in writing (art. 45 TRLPI), and the law gives the exclusive assignee standing of its own to sue (art. 48).
Supplier warranties are not proof of ownership; ask for the underlying contracts.
Build notices that a platform can act on: owner, basis of title, the original work and the exact URL.

Our team for copyright chain of title for photos and digital content can audit supplier and agency imagery before a take-down campaign or a claim.

Where brands get chain of title wrong

Claiming everything at once. A blanket ownership claim over thousands of images invites a title challenge and, under interim orders, exposure on undertakings in damages.
Oral commissions. A freelance shoot without a written contract usually leaves the client with a licence, not ownership.
Repairing title mid-litigation. SHEIN had to plead late “catch-up assignments” for eight sample works; our IP litigation and enforcement team prefers to fix title before the first letter.

Frequently asked questions

What is copyright chain of title?

It is the documented sequence showing how copyright passed from the author, usually the photographer, designer or developer, to the company that now claims it. Each link needs evidence, such as employment contracts or written assignments. If one link is missing, the claimant may hold only a licence and lack standing to sue.

Did SHEIN lose because it lacked a written assignment?

Not only. For the supplier photos SHEIN had no title until June 2024, but it later acquired title and the right to sue. That claim failed because the supplier had consented to the Temu use, and all claims failed because the court found no infringement by Temu. Title problems explain why SHEIN abandoned most of its sample works before trial.

Can IP Global Guard audit our image rights before we enforce?

Yes. We map authorship and transfers for your product imagery, repair gaps with written assignments, prepare substantiated notices for platforms and coordinate enforcement in Europe, Latin America and Africa, through qualified local correspondents where needed, from a single point of contact.

How IP Global Guard helps you enforce with clean title

IP Global Guard, the intellectual property services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, audits chains of title, drafts assignments and runs platform and court enforcement across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa, with one strategy and one billing relationship.

Tell us which images or designs are being copied and on which platforms. We will check your title first and then plan the notices or claims that will hold up. Contact our copyright team.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on the date of publication.