Shein and Temu Face Off in London High Court Over Industrial-Scale Copyright Infringement in Ultra-Fast Fashion
Chinese ultra-fast fashion rivals Shein and Temu opened a High Court trial in London on Monday, with Shein alleging that Temu used thousands of its product photographs on its platform to advertise similar or identical garments — a practice Shein's counsel characterised as copyright infringement 'on an industrial scale'. Shein's barrister Benet Brandreth told the court that Temu's conduct represented 'an attempt to steal a march on an existing participant in the market', arguing that Temu used Shein's photography investment to gain an unfair competitive advantage. Shein's claim extends beyond the photographs themselves: the company alleges Temu sought to capitalise on Shein's broader investments in supply-chain development and supplier training. Temu has denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, arguing that Shein is deploying copyright law as a competitive weapon to suppress legitimate rivalry, and that the case has 'nothing to do with the protection of any intellectual creativity in photographs'. This framing — misuse of IP rights to stifle competition — is a recognised defence strategy in commercial copyright disputes and, if accepted, could have significant implications for how fashion brands use copyright enforcement as a market protection tool. The outcome will carry implications beyond the two parties. Platform-scale copyright enforcement in online retail is an emerging area of UK IP law, where the volume-based nature of alleged infringement — thousands of images — tests both evidential burden and the scalability of copyright remedies. The case is being heard by the UK High Court (the English and Welsh court that handles major civil disputes at first instance), placing English copyright law at the centre of a high-profile international commercial dispute.
Why this matters
This case sits at the intersection of IP litigation and competition law — Temu's countersuit framing raises the question of whether copyright enforcement can constitute an abuse of market position, a live issue in UK and EU competition doctrine. For disputes practices, it exemplifies the 'mega-scale infringement' claim that platforms increasingly face, where the sheer volume of allegedly infringing acts drives both the damages quantum and the complexity of evidential disclosure. The 'why now' trigger is the intensification of platform-to-platform competition in the ultra-fast fashion market, where market participants are deploying legal processes as competitive tools rather than purely defensive mechanisms. English law and the London High Court remain the preferred forum for major cross-border commercial disputes between non-EU parties, underlining the continued centrality of English jurisdiction in global commerce.
On the Ground
A trainee on the Shein litigation team would be heavily involved in disclosure review — categorising and tagging the thousands of photographs alleged to be infringing to build the evidential base for trial. They would also assist with chronology preparation tracking the sequence of photograph publication and alleged copying, and help paginate trial bundles for the hearing.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Temu's countersuit reframes a copyright claim as competitive abuse — this is IP litigation weaponised in a platform rivalry.
Question you might get
“How would you assess the relative strength of Shein's copyright claim against Temu's competition-based counterclaim, and what evidence would each side need to succeed?”
Full answer
Shein has opened a High Court trial against Temu in London, alleging industrial-scale copyright infringement of product photography, while Temu's countersuit argues Shein is using IP rights to suppress competition. This matters because it tests English copyright law at scale — where thousands of images are alleged to be infringing, both the evidential process and the available remedies face unusual demands. The wider trend is the increasing use of IP litigation as a market protection tool by e-commerce platforms, a dynamic that generates large, complex disclosure-heavy mandates for disputes practices. I think Temu's competition-based defence is strategically astute: if it persuades the court that copyright enforcement is being used anti-competitively, it could blunt injunctive relief even if infringement is technically established.
Sources
My notes
saved