# Coupang Case: Responding to a Design Infringement Complaint IP complaints on online platforms can have immediate commercial consequences. A design complaint may lead to suspended sales, reduced visibility, interrupted advertising, and account risks before a court has determined infringement. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432476 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Coupang Case: Responding to a Design Infringement Complaint IP complaints on online platforms can have immediate commercial consequences. A design complaint may lead to suspended sales, reduced visibility, interrupted advertising, and account risks before a court has determined infringement. Designs 2026.03.25 published IPLEX 10 min read IP complaints on online platforms can have immediate commercial consequences. A design complaint may lead to suspended sales, reduced visibility, interrupted advertising, and account risks before a court has determined infringement. Sellers therefore need a timely, structured response addressing both the rights asserted and the platform's process. In this case, the seller's initial response was rejected and the complainant submitted a rebuttal. IPLEX then prepared a patent attorney's opinion and a second response, which led to resumed sales. The analysis addressed validity, abuse of rights, freely usable prior-art designs, and prior-use rights. The asserted right was Design Registration No. 30-1317992, filed on 30 July 2025. The filing date was central: the review examined earlier disclosures, sales, and business preparations, rather than relying only on a comparison of current product appearances. Incident Overview The client sold pencil grips on Coupang. The product had accumulated sales and reviews before Coupang suspended it following a design infringement complaint. The seller had a limited period to submit a response, and an inadequate response could prolong the suspension. Sellers may struggle to identify the asserted right, the legal significance of prior sales, and the evidence required. A useful response must connect the facts with the legal grounds for challenging the complaint. The seller's initial response The seller initially relied on the listing date, KC certification, product photographs, and sales history to show that the product existed and had been sold before the design filing date. Earlier existence or sales can be relevant, but do not automatically establish every defense. Prior-use rights, invalidity, and limitations on the design right each have distinct requirements. The initial response needed to connect its evidence to those requirements. The complainant rebutted the seller's submission, arguing that the product matched the registered design and that evidence of earlier existence alone did not establish independent creation, legitimate acquisition, or the requirements for prior-use rights. Coupang did not accept the initial response. The task at this stage is clear. The platform sees the connection between the data and the law as more important than the amount of data. Even if the product registration date, KC certificate, filming date, transaction data, etc. are present, it can be very unconvincing if it is not aligned with any legal logic. IPLEX IP Law Firm After the incident, we did not approach it in a way that simply reinforces the existing response. This issue was not a mere appearance similarity dispute, but rather a case in which the validity of the registration design itself and the legitimacy of the exercise of rights are at stake. Therefore, we have completely redesigned the case structure, and instead of individually listing the possible defense logic from the seller's point of view, we have organized it into a legal structure that is organically linked to each other. IPLEX assessed potential invalidity, abuse of rights where invalidity was clear, the freely usable prior-art design defense, statutory limits on the design right, and a non-exclusive license based on prior use. The arguments were organized as complementary grounds. Review of invalidity of registration design One of the key issues in this case was whether there was an obvious invalidity in the problem registration design itself. A review of the patent attorney’s opinion confirmed the circumstances in which products of the same or very similar shape to the design had already been published and sold on overseas online platforms and domestic distribution networks prior to the filing date. Even in the actual patent attorney opinion, the disclosure situation of the Chinese sales site, the disclosure situation before the date of the application through the date of review, and similar product sales through the domestic distribution route are specifically organized. Design right is not always a stable right just because it is registered. Designs that have already been publicly known or worked in the country or abroad prior to application, or similar designs, may be invalid. Therefore, it is not possible to immediately determine the infringement of the seller solely for the existence of a registration certificate, but it is necessary to examine the very basis of the registration right first. In this case, it was important to address this point directly. Structuring an abuse-of-rights defense IPLEX also argued that enforcing a design right with clear grounds for invalidity could constitute abuse of rights. The opinion connected this position to the relevant decisions and evidence. Practically, the claim is very important. It's because the platform recognizes that beyond simply asserting non-infringement, the rightholder's reporting is difficult to see as a legitimate exercise of rights. In particular, in cases where there are substantial public disclosures and questions about rights acquisition, these claims play a fundamental role in changing the framework of infringement judgment. Whether the product used a freely usable prior-art design IPLEX considered whether an ordinary designer could readily have produced the product's design from known designs. Evidence of earlier public distribution supported the argument that these features should not fall within an exclusive registered scope. This logic is particularly significant in platform disputes. Not just because appearance is similar, but because it allows us to see whether the form already belongs to the public domain that can be used by anyone. Prior-use rights and limitations on design rights The response also examined actual business activity before the filing date. Sales, reviews, and related records were organized to support the requirements for a non-exclusive license based on prior use and any applicable statutory limitation. Evidence included the Coupang listing date, earliest dated reviews, sales records, and product photographs. Their value depended on how they supported the relevant legal requirements. A patent attorney's opinion and second response leading to resumed sales The second response set out the abuse-of-rights argument, prior-art design defense, prior-use position, and limitations on the registered right, while addressing errors in the complainant's legal analysis. As a result, the product was eventually re-sold. Unresolved events in the direct response stage are the result of a reorganization into a law-based structure after a patent attorney intervention. This shows that in the platform intellectual property rights dispute, the result is not the total amount of data, but the persuasive presentation of the data within a legal framework. The practical meaning of this case The case illustrates the need for an early, legally structured response. Dates, certifications, and sales records must be linked to the applicable defenses. Platform procedures also require submissions tailored to the issues the reviewers can assess. IPLEX IP Law Firm IPLEX IP Law Firm has been continuously conducting dispute resolution cases for Coupang design right violation, Coupang stop selling, and online platform intellectual property rights. We do not stay at the level of writing documents, but instead respond to the timing of events, the distribution structure, the acquisition of rights, the market disclosure situation, and the expected counterpoints of the other party to comprehensively analyze and increase the possibility of a practical resolution. In particular, the Coupang design right breach is very important to the seller. The longer you stop selling, the more you lose. We offer a structured response that will increase the likelihood of a re-sale, based on a quick review system that takes into account the urgency of the case. A design complaint can cause immediate losses, but the response depends on the facts. Potential defenses may include invalidity, freely usable prior-art designs, prior use, statutory limitations, and abuse of rights. IPLEX IP Law Firm handles design, trademark, and patent disputes on platforms including Coupang, Naver Smart Store, and Amazon. Early review can help sellers prepare responses to IP complaints and requests for sales reinstatement. Losses can grow while sales remain suspended. Accurate legal analysis and a structured response can influence the prospect of reinstatement. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Coupang Trademark Enforcement: Seller Response Rejected and Suspension Maintained ↗ Older Coupang Case: Resuming Sales of Six Heated Blankets after Design Complaints ↗ Related insights Designs 2026.08.31 Coupang Case: Resuming Clothing Sales Following a Design Infringement Complaint Sales of a women’s UV-protection cardigan on Coupang were suspended following a design infringement complaint. IPLEX reviewed the evidence and submitted a patent attorney’s opinion and a response to the complaint. The suspension was lifted. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.08.28 Coupang Jewelry Case: Responding to Counterfeit and Design Infringement Allegations This case required separate analysis of alleged counterfeiting and design infringement. The counterfeiting issue concerned use of the rights holder’s mark, claims of authenticity and the overall indication of commercial source on the sales page. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.08.27 Revisiting the Design After a Sales Suspension: A Coupang Jewelry Case For online sellers, a sales suspension email is not just a notice. The product still exists, it's still in stock, and there's customer demand, but the sell button just stops. A single sentence stating that an intellectual property infringement report has been filed can result in sales disruption, advertising loss, inventory burden, and account risk for the seller. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/design - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/1432476 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1360603 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529903 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529903 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529001 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529001 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1528238 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1528238