# Coupang Trademark Enforcement: Seller Response Rejected and Suspension Maintained IPLEX case study: goods similarity, market evidence and unfair competition arguments supporting rejection of a seller’s response and continued suspension on Coupang. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Coupang Trademark Enforcement: Seller Response Rejected and Suspension Maintained IPLEX case study: goods similarity, market evidence and unfair competition arguments supporting rejection of a seller’s response and continued suspension on Coupang. Trademarks 2026.03.26 published IPLEX 8 min read Trademark infringement on an online marketplace can threaten a brand’s reputation and market position. Infringing listings can spread quickly on platforms such as Coupang, making the initial response particularly important. A common scenario is that a rights holder reports infringement, but the seller submits a response, sometimes supported by a patent attorney’s opinion, and requests reinstatement of the listing. An ineffective response at that stage may allow the same conduct to continue and cause further disruption to the market. IPLEX has handled such matters beyond the initial complaint, preparing submissions that challenge the seller’s response and support continued suspension of the listing. This case study explains the arguments used in an actual matter after a Coupang trademark complaint, and how they supported rejection of the seller’s response and continued sales suspension. An infringement report is only the first step A trademark complaint does not necessarily lead to permanent removal of a product. The platform’s review process also allows the seller to respond. An initial restriction may be provisional. The seller’s subsequent response, and the rights holder’s answer to it, can determine the next stage of the review. Sellers may submit responses prepared by patent attorneys, relying on arguments such as an authorized distribution channel, purchase from a manufacturer or differences between product categories. In the reported case, the seller of the Cytofood product argued that it had acquired the goods through a legitimate supply channel. That explanation alone did not resolve the trademark issues raised by the rights holder. Our response addressed the requirements for trademark infringement as well as the underlying facts, so that the platform could assess the legal basis of the complaint. Without a reasoned rebuttal, the seller’s response could have been accepted and the listing reinstated. The seller’s main arguments Seller responses often follow recurring patterns. An argument about supply channels or differences in goods may leave the separate question of authorization to use the trademark unresolved. Here, the seller argued that the product was food manufactured in Korea, had been purchased from the manufacturer in the ordinary course of trade, and that trademark issues were the manufacturer’s responsibility. The seller also submitted a patent attorney’s opinion advancing the following position: “The goods are different, so there is no trademark infringement.” The published account states that the manufacturer had produced and supplied counterfeit goods and that the issue with the manufacturer was resolved. The remaining task was to rebut the legal reasoning in the seller’s patent attorney opinion; otherwise, the seller’s response could still have been accepted. The central issue: similarity of goods The seller characterized the product as a supplement or health functional food and argued that it differed from the non-alcoholic beverages covered by the registered trademark. Our analysis addressed similarity beyond names and formal classifications, considering consumer perception, function, ingredients, intended use, purchasers and distribution channels together. Although the seller relied on the distinction between a “supplement” and a “beverage,” the goods could compete with or substitute for each other in the actual market. Our opinion organized the evidence by function and use, ingredients, customers, distribution and relevant case law to explain why substantive market conditions mattered. Function and use: a shared purpose The Cytofood product was consumed in liquid form for health and nutritional supplementation. Those purposes overlapped with functional beverages, energy drinks and sports drinks, which are also consumed to obtain functional ingredients and support physical condition. The opinion therefore focused on why ordinary consumers purchased and used the goods, rather than whether the label called the product a supplement or a beverage. The overlap in consumption purpose supported the similarity argument. Ingredients: substantive overlap Energy drinks and sports drinks commonly contain functional ingredients such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids and electrolytes. The disputed product had a comparable nutritional purpose and ingredient profile; it was consumed for general health and supplementation rather than treatment of a particular disease. Where ingredients and expected functions overlap, consumers may regard products as substitutes. The opinion explained how this overlap could support similarity even where formal product classifications differed. Consumers and distribution: overlapping markets Both goods were marketed to ordinary consumers for health and physical condition, rather than solely to patients or specialist users. They were also offered through comparable channels, including Coupang, other online stores and health-related retailers. Consumers could therefore encounter and compare the goods on the same platform or in similar purchasing environments. We explained why that overlap mattered to possible confusion about commercial origin and why different product names did not establish wholly separate markets. Case law: substance over formal classification The published case study discusses decisions involving products such as energy drinks and tonic drinks, or red-ginseng beverages and health functional foods, where function, ingredients, purpose and consumer perception were relevant despite differences in formal classification. We selected decisions with reasoning relevant to the facts of this dispute and incorporated them into the opinion. They supported the argument that the seller’s reliance on a formal category distinction was insufficient to resolve similarity of goods. Additional issues under unfair competition law The analysis extended beyond registered trademark infringement. Use of an identical sign for similar goods may also raise unfair competition issues involving another business’s goodwill or distinctiveness, or confusion among consumers. The opinion considered confusion involving product and business identifiers, harm to distinctiveness or reputation, and unauthorized use of another party’s achievements. Presenting these issues alongside the trademark arguments helped explain the broader legal concerns relevant to the request to maintain the suspension. What led to the reported result The seller relied on the formal distinction between supplements and beverages. Our response instead connected function, ingredients, purpose, consumers, distribution and case law with evidence of how the goods competed in the actual market. According to the published case, the platform accepted the substance of the rights holder’s arguments, rejected the seller’s response and maintained the sales suspension. IPLEX’s approach A Coupang trademark matter may require more than filing a complaint. IPLEX draws on its experience in online marketplace IP disputes to organize the arguments and evidence for the platform’s review, including responses to a seller’s request for reinstatement. The work involves selecting the issues that matter, identifying persuasive supporting material and addressing the opposing arguments in the context of the particular dispute. Consultation Prompt review and a coherent strategy are both important. Where continued suspension is sought, the rights holder should identify the relevant rights, evidence and counterarguments early, before the platform decides whether to reinstate the listing. IPLEX reviews online marketplace IP disputes in light of the facts of each matter. Contact the office to discuss the circumstances, documents and available response options. 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 ON THIS PAGE An infringement report is only the first step The seller’s main arguments The central issue: similarity of goods Function and use: a shared purpose Ingredients: substantive overlap Consumers and distribution: overlapping markets Case law: substance over formal classification Additional issues under unfair competition law What led to the reported result IPLEX’s approach Consultation TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Coupang Trademark Case: Responding to a Suspension Involving “Jibbitz” ↗ Older Coupang Case: Responding to a Design Infringement Complaint ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.05.08 Coupang Trademark Suspension Case: Polaroid An online IP complaint can require a response within a short deadline. A Coupang sales suspension may affect visibility, advertising, revenue, inventory, and account standing. This case required legal analysis and a structured response, beyond simply changing the product title. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.04.20 Coupang Trademark Case: Responding to a Suspension Involving “Jibbitz” Online sellers may face an unexpected sales suspension after an IP complaint. This article examines why responses to Coupang trademark complaints can fail and how a more structured response may help. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2025.08.06 Coupang Case: Resolving Account and Sales Suspensions Together This case concerns an online seller facing both product sales suspension and account suspension after an IP complaint, and describes the response that led to account restoration and resumed sales. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/1432904 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-6 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-7 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-8 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-9 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-10 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432904#section-11 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1457253 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1432476 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1468031 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1468031 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1457253 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1457253 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1290717 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1290717