The era of online platform sales has opened up unprecedented opportunities. Many sellers are creating new possibilities in a structure that makes it easy for everyone to put things up and connect directly with consumers. But behind this openness and accessibility lies another reality. It’s a matter of intellectual property rights.
Major e-commerce platforms may restrict a listing after receiving a trademark, design or copyright complaint, before a court determines infringement. Such measures can leave products hidden or sales suspended while the complaint is reviewed.
A seller can therefore lose sales before submitting a response, with further effects on visibility and search ranking. Some complaints involve questionable registrations or insufficient similarity allegations.
In this case, sales resumed within one day after the complainant withdrew its design infringement complaint. IPLEX's opinion and explanatory statement set out the legal weaknesses in the allegation and the risks of maintaining it.
Case background: a Coupang sales suspension
The client sold nipple covers on Coupang. After a design infringement complaint, the listing was hidden and sales were suspended.
The report claimed that the client’s product infringed on ‘Nipple Cover and Case’ related registered design No. 30-122924 and No. 30-1282473. However, the product has been sold in the same form domestically and internationally for many years now, and the design has also been widely used.
Coupang's platform process did not itself provide a court determination of infringement. In this case, the response therefore focused on persuading the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
Fact analysis and response strategy
We immediately analyzed the reported design drawings and the structure of the client's products. The result was a clear difference.
We concluded that the product and the registered design were dissimilar and created different overall aesthetic impressions.
The response addressed three issues: design dissimilarity, grounds for invalidating the registrations and potential abuse of rights in maintaining the complaint.
Legal analysis and non-infringement arguments
Design similarity is assessed through the overall aesthetic impression. A shared individual feature does not by itself establish infringement.
The client's product combined a cover and band to provide a lifting function. The cited design was a flat cover without that structure. The respective case products also differed in shape and appearance.
The statement supported these distinctions with specific evidence and also explained the grounds for challenging the cited registrations.
Invalidity and abuse of rights
The investigation found that the designs relied on by the complainant had been sold in China and Korea before filing, raising novelty issues under Article 33(1) of the Design Protection Act.
The response also warned the complainant of the legal consequences of maintaining unsupported allegations.
The legal analysis and evidence prompted the complainant to reconsider its position. It withdrew the infringement complaint the next day.
Coupang Process and Strategic Approach
In this case, withdrawal of the complaint enabled Coupang to lift the suspension. Clearly explaining the weaknesses in the complainant's position was therefore central to the response.
The response strategy for this case was as follows.
- A patent attorney's opinion sets out non-infringement and invalidity arguments.
- The explanatory statement identifies the complainant's legal risks.
- The complainant is encouraged to withdraw an unsupported allegation.
The complaint was withdrawn and sales resumed without waiting for a further substantive review by Coupang.
The Effects of Expert Intervention
An effective response requires a strategy suited to the platform's process. In this case, addressing the complainant's position was central to resolving the suspension.
This strategy is difficult to try without experience. Judicial judgment, psychological messages, and the balance of written expression should all be right. In this case, we were able to get results in just one day, thanks to a custom phrase structure combined with legal logic and negotiation techniques.
Sales Resume Results
The withdrawal notice arrived the next morning. Coupang lifted the listing restriction, and the client resumed normal sales within one day. The result followed the complainant's withdrawal of the infringement allegation.
Key points of future similar case response
1. Upon receipt of the report, consult with an expert immediately.
2. Assess whether persuading the complainant to withdraw is an effective route.
3. Submit a patent attorney's opinion and a practical, evidence-based response.
4. Warnings must be made on legal grounds.
5. Focus on persuasive evidence and reasoning.
This approach has much faster and more reliable results than simply claiming it’s not an infringement.
The essence of the incident is not that “Coupang has approved the resumption,” but that “the accuser has withdrawn the alleged infringement.” The background had a combination of patent attorney opinions and responses that balanced the jurisprudence, evidence, and pressure.
Speed, evidence and strategy matter in responding to a platform suspension. In this case, securing withdrawal by the complainant was the effective route.
A non-infringement argument should be supported by a practical strategy for resolving the complaint.
This case illustrates that approach.
This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances.