# 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.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529001

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS 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. Designs 2026.08.28 published IPLEX 5 min read Incident Overview IPLEX IP Law Firm responded by preparing a patent attorney's opinion and explanation in a case where a jewelry bracelet product sold at Coupang was suspended due to a report of intellectual property infringement. The case involved a report of a counterfeit product and a claim of infringement of design rights, and although the seller initially submitted a written explanation, it was difficult to lift the sales suspension due to insufficient legal explanation. The key point of this case was that the report should not be viewed simply as a matter of “similar products were sold,” but should be reviewed separately between judgment of counterfeit products and judgment of infringement of design rights. In the case of counterfeit products, it was important to determine whether the right holder's mark was actually used, whether there were any circumstances that led to misidentification as a genuine or official product, and what kind of source recognition the entire detail page created. In design rights issues, it was first necessary to review whether the basis for reporting was a right valid in Korea. main issues The first issue was whether it was a counterfeit product. Even if the report contains the term “counterfeit product,” you must separately check whether the trademark of the right holder is actually used in the product name, detail page, image, packaging, or authentication materials. If it is not marked as genuine by the right holder or advertised as an official product, it is difficult to conclude that it is a counterfeit product simply because certain motifs are similar in appearance. The second issue was whether design rights were violated. Since the rights presented as the basis for the report were overseas design patents, it was necessary to review whether the rights would be immediately effective for sales in Korea. Since the principle of territoriality applies to intellectual property rights, infringement of design rights does not constitute domestic infringement just because there are rights registered overseas. In order to claim infringement on domestic sales, the existence of rights that can be validly exercised domestically must be confirmed. The third issue was the structure of the response materials. The initial explanation submitted directly by the seller focused on explaining the unfairness, but in order for the platform to make a judgment, the requirements for each type of right, the display mode on the sales page, the possibility of consumer confusion, and the validity of domestic rights had to be systematically organized. IPLEX’s response direction IPLEX first analyzed the reporting basis and sales page data to isolate the issues. Regarding counterfeit products, we reviewed whether or not the rights holder's mark was used, whether or not it was impersonated as a genuine product, whether the original source was indicated on the sales page, and differences in price and distribution channels. Regarding infringement of design rights, we focused on reviewing whether the basis for reporting was foreign rights and whether there were specified corresponding rights effective in Korea. Subsequently, the patent attorney's opinion clearly reflected that the judgment of counterfeit goods and the judgment of design rights have different legal structures. When claiming a counterfeit product, confusion over the source and use of the mark are important, and when claiming design rights, the existence of a valid right and whether it is implemented within the scope of that right are important. Mixing the two issues into one may reduce the persuasiveness of the explanation, so we structured the logic according to each judgment standard. In the explanation, the contents of the patent attorney's opinion are organized according to the platform submission format. It clearly states that the product being sold is not an impersonation of the owner's genuine product and that it is difficult to recognize infringement of domestic design rights based solely on the basis of the report, and concluded with a request to lift the sales restriction. The core logic of the patent attorney’s opinion The first important logic in the patent attorney’s opinion is that “the judgment of similarity in appearance and counterfeit goods must be distinguished.” Counterfeit goods are related to counterfeiting the rights holder's mark or presenting it as if it were genuine. On the other hand, design rights infringement is related to whether the product shape or motif is included in the scope of rights of the registered design. Therefore, a product cannot be immediately evaluated as a counterfeit product just because its appearance appears somewhat similar. The second logic is that “the source indication on the detail page must be viewed as a whole.” If the rights holder's trademark is not used on the sales page and there is a separate mark indicating that it is the seller's product, the likelihood that general consumers will mistake it for the rights holder's genuine product may be lowered. The opinion analyzed the possibility of source confusion by combining the product name, image, wearing photo, and detailed page composition. The third logic is that “infringement of domestic design rights cannot be determined based on foreign design patents alone.” Design rights take effect based on the country of registration. In order to exercise rights targeting domestic sales, the existence of valid rights in Korea must be specified. If domestic rights are not specified in the reported data, this becomes an important point in determining platform sales suspension. Results and Significance After the patent attorney's opinion and explanation written by IPLEX were submitted, the sales suspension issue was finally resolved. This case shows that a structured explanation of legal principles is more important than a simple rebuttal when responding to reports of Coupang intellectual property infringement. In particular, when a counterfeit product report and a design rights infringement claim are filed together, the review standards vary for each issue. Whether or not a product is counterfeit is centered on the use of the mark and impersonation of a genuine product, and whether or not a design right is infringed is centered on the existence and scope of the right. If overseas rights are provided as the basis, the validity of domestic sales must also be considered. When a sales suspension occurs on platforms such as Coupang, Smart Store, and Open Market, the response period is short and the submission format is often set. Therefore, it is important to accurately identify the basis for reporting at the initial stage and prepare the roles of explanation and opinion separately. 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 Clothing Sales Following a Design Infringement Complaint ↗ Older Revisiting the Design After a Sales Suspension: A Coupang Jewelry Case ↗ 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 2026.08.27 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 Designs 2026.07.06 Coupang Case: Lifting a Sales Suspension Based on a Design Complaint In this case, sales of a Coupang product were discontinued after it became the subject of a design rights infringement report. The product sold was a set of three cleaning brushes used to remove dust from vehicle interiors and living spaces, and the registered designs on which the report was based were rights for cosmetic brush-related items. ↗ Read article

- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/design
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/1529001
- 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/1529903
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1528238
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529903
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1529903
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1528238
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1528238
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1500763
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1500763