# Coupang design complaint: resolving a sales suspension

IPLEX resolved a suspension involving acupressure sandals by connecting pre-filing sales records, customer photographs and product history under Korean design law.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Coupang design complaint: resolving a sales suspension IPLEX resolved a suspension involving acupressure sandals by connecting pre-filing sales records, customer photographs and product history under Korean design law. Designs 2026.10.19 published IPLEX 8 min read A design complaint against an established product In August 2026, a seller received a suspension notice after a complaint alleged unauthorized use of a Korean registered design. The products were acupressure sandals with an instep cover, thick soles and footbed nodules, sold in several colours and sizes; some versions had an ankle strap and round buckle. The complainant rejected the seller’s explanation, and Coupang offered a second response procedure supported by materials suitable for legal review. IPLEX distinguished the complainant’s objections from the platform’s procedural guidance. An objection to the explanation did not itself establish infringement. Original photograph of the sandals showing the instep cover, openings, sole sides, strap and round buckle. The filing date set the chronological reference point The cited design was filed on 24 July 2026 and registered on 18 August 2026. Filing and registration are different events. For the prior-use analysis, the relevant question concerned commercial activity in Korea when the application was filed. The product history recorded an initial listing on 11 July 2025. Customer photo reviews followed in August 2025, and orders and sales across colours and sizes were documented in October and November. Further photo reviews from May to July 2026 helped connect the earlier product line with sales around the filing date. Three kinds of records answered different questions Listing history identified the product and its initial listing date. Orders and sales supported actual commercial activity involving Korean customers. Dated customer photographs helped show the appearance of products in circulation. None of these sources, considered alone, established the entire history. IPLEX matched the product history and sales analysis to the same registered listing, then compared colour and size options in transactions and reviews. Different identifier formats on different screens did not automatically mean different products. A later page-edit date was distinguished from the original listing date; an old listing also did not prove that every current photograph and description had remained unchanged. Photographs needed both dates and product connections The August 2025 photographs were examined for the open toe and heel, the shape and elongated openings of the instep cover, and the angular sides of the sole. The task was to identify the disputed appearance in earlier photographs, rather than rely on an unchanged product name. Review dates were treated as dates of publication of the reviews, not assumed to be dates when the photographs were taken. Images from several periods were considered together with actual sales records, allowing the response to explain both pre-filing transactions and the appearance of the relevant products. The strap version required its own timeline The current listing described a renewal adding an ankle strap and round buckle. That wording did not show when the changes occurred. IPLEX separately reviewed the basic model and the version with those additional components. A pink-product photo review dated 15 May 2026 showed a strap; a khaki-product photograph dated 29 June showed the strap, round buckle and sole. Both preceded 24 July. The complained-of pink option was also linked to the May review’s option details. Features from separate photographs were not combined into an invented earlier product, and the strap alone was not treated as decisive proof of an overall design difference. Original photograph of the current product; earlier records were compared by product configuration and date. Prior use was more than a claim to have sold first Article 100 of the Korean Design Protection Act provides a non-exclusive licence in defined circumstances for a person who, without knowledge of the application, independently created the design or learned it from its creator and was conducting, or preparing, the relevant business in Korea at filing. Its scope is tied to the design and business already worked or prepared. Earlier sales do not automatically give every seller the same right. The review considered how the design had been acquired, the Korean business and its scope, as well as product photographs and existing-option transactions. A seller’s not being the original creator did not end the inquiry. The opinion argued for this seller’s prior-use entitlement on the documented facts. Validity and publicly known designs were separate issues Pre-filing disclosure also mattered to registrability: the opinion separately considered identity or similarity to earlier public products, ease of creation, and possible restrictions on enforcement. These arguments were addressed alongside the claimed visual similarity. IPLEX also developed an argument that the current product reproduced, or was readily derived from, a publicly known design and could therefore be practised freely. That argument was distinct from the prior-use protection of this particular seller’s existing business. Each required its own factual support; neither was reduced to the assertion that the product had been sold before. Aligning the opinion, second response and attachments The patent attorney’s opinion examined the registered drawings, the product’s shape, links among pre-filing records, prior use and publicly known designs. The opposing submissions were checked against the drawings and relevant provisions instead of being accepted as the starting premise. The shorter second response followed the same order: earlier listings, reviews and transactions; their significance for the prior-use and publicly known-design arguments; then registrability and rebuttal points, ending with a request to lift the restriction. Attachments were arranged so that each record could be located against the proposition it supported. The suspension was resolved; the records remain important The suspension affecting these acupressure sandals was ultimately resolved. This platform outcome is distinct from a decision on the validity of a design registration. The source does not report a judicial finding of non-infringement, an invalidation judgment or a particular turnaround period. For products that change over time, earlier listing pages, option-level transactions and dated product records help explain the relationship between previous and current versions. In this matter, the combined listing history, actual sales and customer photographs—and separate timelines for basic and modified versions—supported the response. The original listing date alone did not resolve every issue. Coupang response services and sales-resumption cases (Korean) ↗ 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 A design complaint against an established product The filing date set the chronological reference point Three kinds of records answered different questions Photographs needed both dates and product connections The strap version required its own timeline Prior use was more than a claim to have sold first Validity and publicly known designs were separate issues Aligning the opinion, second response and attachments The suspension was resolved; the records remain important TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Older Coupang trademark complaint: the analysis behind resumed sales ↗ 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/%EC%BF%A0%ED%8C%A1-%EC%A7%80%EC%8B%9D%EC%9E%AC%EC%82%B0%EA%B6%8C-%EB%AC%B8%EC%A0%9C-%ED%95%B4%EA%B2%B0#case-studies
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-0
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-1
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-2
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-3
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-4
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-5
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-6
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-7
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848#coupang-1848-en-8
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-trademark-sales-resumption-1834
- 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