Nowadays, online sales have become commonplace, and open market platforms such as Coupang, Naver Smart Store, and 11th Street have become an indispensable business space for sellers. At the same time, however, your sales activities on the platform may face unexpected threats at any time.
In particular, the suspension of sales due to a design right violation report is a real problem that many sellers are experiencing. Upon receipt of the complaint, the platform will immediately stop exposing the product and require the seller to submit a statement. If a response is wrong without legal knowledge, the suspension of sales can be prolonged and spread to account suspension or dispute litigation.
This article presents a Coupang case in which IPLEX's patent attorney opinion helped lift a design-related sales suspension.
Case background: a design complaint and sales suspension
In August 2025, a knee-brace seller received a sales-suspension notice after a registered design owner filed an infringement complaint.
The complaint relied on a knee-brace design registered in September 2024. Coupang restricted the listing before a court determination of infringement.
The seller immediately asked IPLEX for help, and we quickly completed a patent attorney opinion and submitted it to Coupang.
Response strategy: a legal and evidentiary rebuttal
The response addressed five legal grounds:
1. There is an invalidity in the registered design itself.
According to Article 33 (1) of the Design Protection Act, designs that have been known or performed before an application can not be registered. The seller has been selling the same products with the same design as the problem since April 2023, and has proven this through reviews, photo reviews, and proof of registration date. It also made clear that the same product was sold before the design filing date in the Chinese online store, and that the product image and review timeline were already open to a large number of people before the application. So it was clear that the registered design was an invalid object that had lost novelty.
2. Enforcing a clearly invalid design may constitute abuse of rights
Seoul High Court case 2015Na2060007 addresses the principle that seeking an infringement injunction on the basis of a design registration clearly subject to invalidation may constitute an abuse of rights.
In this case, because the registration of the design lacked novelty and creativity, the exercise of rights based on it was an obvious abuse.
3. The product follows a freely usable prior-art design
The product sold by the seller is a universal knee protector design that is often seen as the main component of its functional structure and simple form.
Supreme Court case 2016Hu878 addresses designs that an ordinary designer could easily create from the prior art and that therefore fall outside the registered design's scope.
In light of these laws, the product was a public domain design that anyone could freely use, and even if it was registered, it was not included in the scope of the rights.
4. Limits on the right's effect on products already present in Korea
Article 94, paragraph 1, of the Design Protection Act states that goods that already exist in the country at the time of application for registration do not have the effect of the design right. The seller's products were actually distributed and sold long before the design application date, and were demonstrated by customer reviews, image reviews, and shipping history. Therefore, it is clear that the design right is an issue that can have no effect on this product.
5. Recognition of a non-exclusive license based on prior use
Article 100 of the Design Protection Act provides for a non-exclusive license based on qualifying use or business preparations in Korea before filing, without knowledge of the design in the application.
The seller had manufactured and sold the product well before the filing date, which was beyond mere development or preparation, with commercial distribution.
This supported the prior-user rights argument.
Coupang's response: lifting the suspension and resuming sales
After a patent attorney opinion and a number of proofs were submitted to Coupang, Coupang lifted the suspension and allowed the product to be exposed and sold normally.
This is a representative success story that led to the resumption of sales in a single structured opinion, without a separate proceeding.
The lesson of this case is: Sellers have rights.
Intellectual property rights are the right to be protected, but sometimes good sellers are disadvantaged by malicious purposes or poorly-reviewed registered designs.
This example illustrates how expert legal analysis and strategic response in such situations lead to practical protection of rights.
IPLEX is a reliable partner for online sellers.
We don’t just write opinions. We are a strategic legal partner that analyzes the core of the problem and provides the best solution for our clients.
This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances.