Incident Overview
The seller who sold LG Electronics TV products in Coupang has stopped selling products due to a copyright infringement report related to the representative image.
The seller had listed LG Electronics television products using a type of representative product image common in e-commerce. Following a copyright complaint concerning that image, Coupang suspended sales.
The characteristics of this case are as follows:
- The seller did not take the image himself.
- No separate copyright use agreement existed
- However, this is a common method of use in e-commerce environments.
The seller has filed several declarations since the problem occurred, but Coupang has refused to accept them all and has remained in suspension.
Why the initial responses did not resolve the case
The seller repeatedly submitted a statement and presented the following logic.
- The product image lacks the originality required for copyright protection.
- It is a functional depiction of the product.
- Same product image usage is common in the industry
These claims are legally significant.
However, Coupang’s assessment criteria were in a different direction.
Coupang only asked for the following formality.
- Original image taken directly
- PSD file etc.
- Permission to use the image from the rights holder
In other words, the judgment was not based on whether or not the law was violated, but on whether the right was held.
In this structure, it's difficult to change the result, no matter how logical the response is.
The IPLEX approach
The IPLEX IP Law Firm approached the case not simply as a platform response, but as a copyright issue.
The key questions were set up as follows:
Is this image protected by copyright?
The response focused on whether copyright protection arose in the image, rather than relying solely on an assertion of non-infringement.
The core logic of the patent attorney’s opinion
In this case, we designed the logic with the following three-step structure through the patent attorney opinion.
1. Challenging copyrightability
Copyright infringement requires a protected work. IPLEX argued that the image primarily depicted the product's appearance accurately and contained little creative expression.
- Solid background
- A front view or a fixed viewing angle
- Product Centered Deployment
- No directing
These elements are more of an inevitable configuration for information delivery than a creative choice.
Therefore, the image is difficult to see as a copyrighted work.
2. Functional Expressions
The image is an expression of the functional purpose of delivering the appearance, design and specifications of the product to the consumer.
In an e-commerce environment, when shooting the same product, the following methods are commonly used:
- Solid background
- Product Centered Deployment
- Front or Constant Angle
This is a way for everyone to do the same and is a functional expression, not a creative one.
Copyright law does not recognize protection for these functional expressions.
3. Trading Practices and Fair Competition Consideration
In e-commerce, multiple sellers sell the same product at the same time. In this process, the use of a similar form of product image is a common practice across the industry.
IPLEX argued that granting exclusive control over a routine product depiction could unnecessarily restrict other sellers and consumers' access to product information.
These were arguments concerning the particular image and its context; they were presented as reasons against recognizing copyright protection in this case.
Additional Response Strategy
IPLEX has not only responded to the claim that it is “not a violation”, but also to the following legal risks:
This structure is not just a defense, but a strategy that creates a real legal burden on the platform and on the reporting side.
In practice, there are many ways to change direction at this point.
result
After a patent attorney's opinion and a strengthened response were submitted, the sales suspension was lifted and sales resumed.
The point of this case is not just to submit additional documents, but to precisely identify legal issues, to structurally redesign the logic, and to respond with a level of expertise that the platform cannot ignore.
This approach was a decisive factor that changed the outcome.
Practical implications
You can see the following in this case.
- Platform disputes are not resolved by simple arguments.
- Repeated submissions alone may be insufficient without a clear legal basis.
- The response should be a carefully structured legal submission.
In particular, platforms such as Coupang are judged by different internal standards than courts, so it is often difficult to resolve in a general way.
IPLEX IP Law Firm
The IPLEX IP Law Firm provides a strategic response that reflects both platform structure and law.
- Understanding the Coupang Intellectual Property Rights Review Structure
- A copyrightability analysis grounded in law
- Legal interpretation of technical analysis materials
- Case-based logic configuration
- Aggressive response strategies included
Drawing on its case experience, IPLEX aims to prepare responses that support the practical goal of resuming sales.
Coupang Stopping Sales, Reporting of Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property Rights Disputes are not just legal matters, they are business risks that are directly related to sales.
If it is not resolved even in the case of repeated response, the initial response direction itself needs to be rethought.
The IPLEX IP Law Firm provides an optimal response strategy based on real-world solutions.
We will guide you in the right direction whenever you need to.
This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances.