# A Hair-Fixture Design Case: Preparing a Response and Patent Attorney Opinion This case involved more than comparing product appearances. The key question was whether similarly shaped products had already been disclosed and sold through online platforms, user reviews or videos before the registered design’s filing date. Using that evidence, IPLEX examined potential invalidity and abuse of rights where the grounds for invalidity were clear… Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1475025 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS A Hair-Fixture Design Case: Preparing a Response and Patent Attorney Opinion This case involved more than comparing product appearances. The key question was whether similarly shaped products had already been disclosed and sold through online platforms, user reviews or videos before the registered design’s filing date. Using that evidence, IPLEX examined potential invalidity and abuse of rights where the grounds for invalidity were clear… Designs 2026.05.20 published IPLEX 7 min read Business Cases IPLEX IP Law Firm prepared a seller's response and a patent attorney's opinion concerning a design infringement complaint on Coupang. The case involved a hair-styling fixture and risks of both product sales suspension and account suspension. The key issue was whether similarly shaped products had been publicly disclosed and sold before the registered design's filing date. IPLEX reviewed potential invalidity, abuse of rights where invalidity was clear, and a defense based on freely usable prior-art designs. Case Background The seller offered a hair-styling fixture on Coupang with a band-shaped structure across the head and cutouts around the ears. The complainant asserted that the product infringed its registered design for a hair fixture. Upon receipt of a complaint for infringement of intellectual property rights, Coupang may first take a stop-selling action and require the seller to submit a statement and evidence. In particular, if it is judged to be a repeat violation, it may increase the risk of suspension of the entire sales account, not just the unit of sale. In this case, the risk of discontinuation and suspension of accounts was not just a product description, but an analysis of rights and a response to account risk. Rights under review The problem was the design of the hair fixtures. The feature of the drawing was the curved band structure covering the head, the incision of the ear for avoidance in the lower left and right sides, and the shape of the front and rear parts extending to the lower end. These features have become important not only in determining similarity with the products sold, but also in determining similarity with the designs published before the filing date. The review considered the registered design's validity, its scope, and whether the product fell within that scope. Evidence of similar products disclosed before the filing date made validity a central issue. IPLEX’s response strategy IPLEX divided the case into three stages. First, we have the registration information. We have identified the registration number, application date, registration date, the object of the design, features by drawing, and have identified the center of the rights that the complainant can claim. Second, we have collected public information before the filing date. Reviewing online sales pages, user reviews, product usage photos, product introduction videos, and related posts, we compiled data showing that similar forms of products have already been published and distributed in the market. In particular, material with objective time information was important, such as user reviews and video uploads. We linked the evidence to the legal grounds: the earlier materials could establish publicly known or worked designs, support invalidity of the registration, and provide a basis for arguing abuse of rights. We also considered whether the product was a freely usable design readily derivable from that prior art. Key legal issue 1. Potential invalidity based on prior-art designs Designs that have been publicly known or worked in the country or abroad prior to their application for design registration under the Design Protection Act may not be registered. In this case, a similar hair fixation product was released on the online platform and through user reviews prior to the filing date of the registered design. IPLEX argued that the registered design was likely similar to designs publicly known or worked before filing. This challenged the validity of the right relied upon, beyond a comparison of the seller's product with the registration. Key legal issue 2. Abuse of rights If, even if a registered design exists, it is clear that the design registration will be invalidated by invalidation procedures, the infringement claims or suspension requests based on the design right may be evaluated for abuse. In this case, the dominant characteristics of the prior-art design and the registered design were very similar, which was an important reason to support the claims of abuse. In its submission to Coupang, IPLEX challenged the basis for exercising the asserted right, in addition to identifying product differences. This helped present the case as a substantive rights dispute requiring review. Key legal issue 3. Freely usable prior-art designs A freely usable prior-art design is one that an ordinary designer could readily create from publicly known designs. Such a design may fall outside a registered design's scope even where there is similarity, because the existing design features should not be monopolized. The product sold in this case had a similar shape to the prior-art design and was able to be adopted naturally by the banded structure and the incision for the ear avoidance in view of the functional purpose of fixing the hair. Therefore, IPLEX claims that the sale of the product corresponds to a freely usable prior-art design based on the prior-art design. Separate assessment of account suspension risk In the Coupang case, you need to distinguish between a product-by-product suspension and an account-by-account sanctions. The product unit must state that the product does not infringe on the reported intellectual property rights. On the other hand, account units should review their history of repeat violations, whether they reflect events that have already been lifted, whether they handle confirmed breaches during review, and any future plans to prevent recurrences. Because both product and account suspension were at issue, IPLEX considered a response concerning the account and a plan to prevent recurrence alongside the product non-infringement arguments. Legal analysis and platform risk management needed to be coordinated. Results and implications of work IPLEX prepared a complaint response and a patent attorney's opinion explaining why the product was argued to fall outside the registered design's scope. The opinion addressed pre-filing disclosures, similarity to prior-art designs, potential invalidity, abuse of rights, and the freely usable design defense. The case highlights the need to identify the asserted right and filing date promptly, collect pre-filing disclosures, connect each item of evidence to the legal argument, and prepare separate product-level and account-level responses where both are at risk. IPLEX IP Law Firm provides quick and structured response based on practical experience in dealing with disputes concerning Coupang sales stop, Coupang design right claim, Coupang account stop, and open market intellectual property rights. If you need counselling After a design complaint or suspension notice, review more than the response deadline. Consider the asserted right's validity, prior disclosures, whether the product falls within the right's scope, account suspension risk, and any need for a corrective action plan. IPLEX IP Law Firm assists with Coupang IP complaints, design infringement analysis, patent attorney opinions, and sales reinstatement strategies. Early review is important because prolonged suspension can increase losses and account risks. 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 Case: Resuming Sales Following a Design Infringement Report ↗ Older Coupang Trademark Suspension Case: Polaroid ↗ 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/1475025 - 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/1491946 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1468031 - 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