Incident Overview
This is a case where a seller selling clothing products in Coupang received a report of an image copyright infringement and the product was suspended.
The image was the same.
- Image of a white background
- Product shoots alone
- Composition by Color
- Front / Back Array
This is a typical product detail page image commonly used in online apparel sales.
Initial responses
The seller has written several self-declarations.
The data presented included the following.
- Relevant Supreme Court decisions
- Arguments concerning the image's lack of originality
- Technical analysis data such as RGB/HSV/edge density
Coupang did not accept the submissions, and the seller's responses were repeatedly rejected.
Reasons for repeated rejection
The principal reasons given were:
- The origin and reliability of technical analysis data is unclear
- Lack of legal review available
- Need for a patent attorney's opinion
That is, it was not a simple claim or explanation, but it required a level of legal and objective data to be examined.
key issues
The central issue
The key question was whether the image qualified for copyright protection.
Copyright infringement must meet the following requirements:
- A Work That Is Protected
- Ownership of the asserted copyright
- Unauthorized copying
- Substantial similarity
If the image does not qualify as a protected work, the asserted copyright infringement cannot be established on that basis.
The essence of the problem: a functional image
The image in question has the following characteristics:
- Recreating the product appearance
- White solid color background
- Typed layouts
- Simple color notation
It's not a creative expression, it's a functional expression for delivering product information.
Anyone who shoots the same product will have a similar result.
Therefore, the image is difficult to view as a copyrighted work.
Limitations of the earlier responses
The seller’s claim was not logically incorrect.
However, the responses had the following limitations:
- The issue is not clear
- Law and practice not connected.
- Technical data does not lead to a conclusion
- Failed to reflect platform review criteria
The problem lay in the structure of the response, not simply the amount of material.
IPLEX Response Strategy
IPLEX IP Law Firm has reconstructed this case in the following way:
1. Redefining Issues
The issue was framed as copyrightability of the image, rather than merely whether it had been used.
2. Legal Structure Design
The response was reorganized as follows:
- Requirements for copyright infringement
- Criteria for assessing copyrightability
- Describe the functional nature of a product image
- Assessment of creativity in individual elements
- Assessment of originality in the overall composition
3. Legal links of technical data
We've restructured the previously submitted technical analysis data by linking it to the law, not simply listing it.
Example:
- Color analysis → absence of creative color treatment → argument against originality
- Edge density → routine composition → argument against originality
- Texture analysis → no post-processing → absence of creative elements
4. Submit your patent attorney opinion
The submission included a patent attorney's opinion addressing:
- The applicable legal criteria
- Relevant case law
- Technical Analysis
These points were presented together.
5. Preparation for the rights holder's rebuttal
It's not just a defense, it's a structure that's maintained when the rightholder refutes it.
result
After submitting the patent attorney’s opinion and a restructured statement, Coupang’s cease-of-sale action has been lifted.
Key points
The factors that changed the outcome in this case are:
- Accurate identification of the issue: copyrightability
- Legally-oriented structural design
- Legal interpretation of technical data
- Submit an Expert Opinion
- Meets platform standards
Why we need expert intervention.
A response to a Coupang IP complaint is more than an informal explanation.
It has the following characteristics:
- Platform self-examination criteria exist
- Applying Legal + Practice Standards Simultaneously
- Objective Verification Data Requirements
- A professional legal opinion may be needed.
In such a system, the usual response is often difficult to resolve.
IPLEX IP Law Firm
The IPLEX IP Law Firm is specialized in dealing with intellectual property rights disputes in the Coupang, Smart Store, Amazon, etc.
The main features are:
- Understanding the Coupang Internal Review Structure
- Experience resolving actual cases
- Legally-focused structural design capabilities
- Coordinated complaint responses and legal opinions
- Quick response system
The service aims to support resumption of sales through a practical response strategy.
Coupang response is not an explanation, but a matter of legal design. The same is true for how they are structured. Accurate judgment and structured response are key to re-sale.
This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances.