# Coupang Image-Copyright Case: Addressing Repeatedly Rejected Responses This is a case where a seller selling clothing products in Coupang received a report of an image copyright infringement and the product was suspended. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1464043 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Coupang Image-Copyright Case: Addressing Repeatedly Rejected Responses This is a case where a seller selling clothing products in Coupang received a report of an image copyright infringement and the product was suspended. Copyright 2026.04.29 published IPLEX 4 min read Incident Overview This is a case where a seller selling clothing products in Coupang received a report of an image copyright infringement and the product was suspended. The image was the same. Image of a white background Product shoots alone Composition by Color Front / Back Array This is a typical product detail page image commonly used in online apparel sales. Initial responses The seller has written several self-declarations. The data presented included the following. Relevant Supreme Court decisions Arguments concerning the image's lack of originality Technical analysis data such as RGB/HSV/edge density Coupang did not accept the submissions, and the seller's responses were repeatedly rejected. Reasons for repeated rejection The principal reasons given were: The origin and reliability of technical analysis data is unclear Lack of legal review available Need for a patent attorney's opinion That is, it was not a simple claim or explanation, but it required a level of legal and objective data to be examined. key issues The central issue The key question was whether the image qualified for copyright protection. Copyright infringement must meet the following requirements: A Work That Is Protected Ownership of the asserted copyright Unauthorized copying Substantial similarity If the image does not qualify as a protected work, the asserted copyright infringement cannot be established on that basis. The essence of the problem: a functional image The image in question has the following characteristics: Recreating the product appearance White solid color background Typed layouts Simple color notation It's not a creative expression, it's a functional expression for delivering product information. Anyone who shoots the same product will have a similar result. Therefore, the image is difficult to view as a copyrighted work. Limitations of the earlier responses The seller’s claim was not logically incorrect. However, the responses had the following limitations: The issue is not clear Law and practice not connected. Technical data does not lead to a conclusion Failed to reflect platform review criteria The problem lay in the structure of the response, not simply the amount of material. IPLEX Response Strategy IPLEX IP Law Firm has reconstructed this case in the following way: 1. Redefining Issues The issue was framed as copyrightability of the image, rather than merely whether it had been used. 2. Legal Structure Design The response was reorganized as follows: Requirements for copyright infringement Criteria for assessing copyrightability Describe the functional nature of a product image Assessment of creativity in individual elements Assessment of originality in the overall composition 3. Legal links of technical data We've restructured the previously submitted technical analysis data by linking it to the law, not simply listing it. Example: Color analysis → absence of creative color treatment → argument against originality Edge density → routine composition → argument against originality Texture analysis → no post-processing → absence of creative elements 4. Submit your patent attorney opinion The submission included a patent attorney's opinion addressing: The applicable legal criteria Relevant case law Technical Analysis These points were presented together. 5. Preparation for the rights holder's rebuttal It's not just a defense, it's a structure that's maintained when the rightholder refutes it. result After submitting the patent attorney’s opinion and a restructured statement, Coupang’s cease-of-sale action has been lifted. Key points The factors that changed the outcome in this case are: Accurate identification of the issue: copyrightability Legally-oriented structural design Legal interpretation of technical data Submit an Expert Opinion Meets platform standards Why we need expert intervention. A response to a Coupang IP complaint is more than an informal explanation. It has the following characteristics: Platform self-examination criteria exist Applying Legal + Practice Standards Simultaneously Objective Verification Data Requirements A professional legal opinion may be needed. In such a system, the usual response is often difficult to resolve. IPLEX IP Law Firm The IPLEX IP Law Firm is specialized in dealing with intellectual property rights disputes in the Coupang, Smart Store, Amazon, etc. The main features are: Understanding the Coupang Internal Review Structure Experience resolving actual cases Legally-focused structural design capabilities Coordinated complaint responses and legal opinions Quick response system The service aims to support resumption of sales through a practical response strategy. Coupang response is not an explanation, but a matter of legal design. The same is true for how they are structured. Accurate judgment and structured response are key to re-sale. 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 Initial responses TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Coupang Copyright Case: Resuming Sales after Repeated Responses and a Patent Attorney Opinion ↗ Older Coupang Trademark Case: Responding to a Suspension Involving “Jibbitz” ↗ Related insights Copyright 2026.07.30 Coupang Case: Responding to a Product-Image Copyright Complaint The client received a report of product image copyright infringement while selling winter fashion accessories at Coupang. The image in question was a photo of the product worn in a promotional banner, and after reporting, the product was suspended from sale. ↗ Read article Copyright 2026.04.30 Coupang Copyright Case: Resuming Sales after Repeated Responses and a Patent Attorney Opinion The seller who sold LG Electronics TV products in Coupang has stopped selling products due to a copyright infringement report related to the representative image. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/copyright - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/1464043 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1464043#section-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1464395 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1457253 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1514359 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1514359 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1464395 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1464395