Coupang Case: Resuming Sales Following a Design Infringement Report

Coupang notified the seller that a design infringement complaint had resulted in a sales suspension and requested a response with supporting evidence by the specified deadline.

The seller initially submitted a response explaining differences between the product and the registered design, but that response was rejected. The seller then engaged IPLEX IP Law Firm.

The engagement involved three tasks: assessing whether the product fell within the registered design's scope; developing defenses based on pre-filing disclosures and freely usable prior-art designs; and separately responding to the photograph copyright allegations raised during rejection of the initial response.

In order for a design right infringement to take place, the overall aesthetics of the registered design and the products sold must be the same or similar. It is not enough to simply fall into the same category of goods or to state that some functional structures are similar. IPLEX reviewed functionally necessary and aesthetically protected configurations.

We compared the product's handle, connections, lower supports, color contrasts, and finishing details with the registered design, focusing on features consumers perceive. We explained how those differences affected the overall impression.

We reviewed evidence that similar products had been disclosed and sold online before the registered design's filing date. Buyer reviews, sales listings, and supplier images could help establish those earlier disclosures.

A product may be argued to fall outside the registered design's scope if its design could readily have been created by an ordinary designer from pre-filing prior-art designs or their combination. IPLEX assessed whether this defense was available.

The complainant also raised photograph copyright allegations when challenging the seller's response. IPLEX treated these as separate from design infringement and examined the need for evidence concerning the original files, photographer, capture information, first publication, registered subject matter, and alleged copying route.

Coupang does not decide the merits as a court would, but it requires objective evidence when assessing whether a sales suspension should continue. The response must therefore connect the legal arguments to evidence in a form suited to the platform's process.

After IPLEX submitted a second response and an additional patent attorney's opinion, Coupang informed the seller that the sales suspension was being lifted based on the explanation and supporting evidence.

Coupang also indicated that the opinion would be forwarded at the complainant's request, but that the matter would be difficult to reopen without further reasonable and objective grounds showing why sales could not continue.

This case shows that even after an initial response is rejected, rebuilding the analysis of each asserted right and the supporting evidence may lead to reinstatement of sales.

1) Coupang's suspension notice and response deadline

2) Registration publications or details of the asserted rights

3) Capture the actual photos and details of the products

4) Pre-filing disclosures, sales records, dated reviews, and videos

5) Supplier documents, product option details, and manufacturing or import records

6) The other party's rejection of the response and its attachments

7) Materials necessary for reviewing original files, shooting information and copyright registration materials in case of copyright claim

IPLEX IP Law Firm handles IP complaints and sales suspension cases on Coupang, Naver Smart Store, and other marketplaces. Its work includes rights analysis, complaint responses, patent attorney opinions, responses to rebuttals, and supplementary submissions.

For trademark complaints, we review trademark use, goods similarity, parallel imports of genuine goods, and descriptive use. For design complaints, we examine similarity, dominant features, functional shapes, prior-art designs, freely usable designs, and abuse of rights. Copyright reviews cover ownership, originality, creativity, copying, and relevant platform policies.

Sales suspension cases have short deadlines. Preserve the materials promptly and determine the response strategy. If the first response was rejected, analyze the reasons and develop a revised argument rather than repeating the same submission.

Check the type of right asserted, response deadline, required documents, product number, and sales status, and immediately preserve the listing and product evidence.

It may not be the end. You can respond by analyzing the claim structure and evidence, submitting a second statement, additional patent attorney opinions, and supplementary materials.

Review the overall aesthetic impression of the registered design and product, limits on protection for functional shapes, prior-art designs, freely usable prior-art design defenses, and potential abuse of rights.

Photograph copyright is separate from design rights. Review the original files, photographer, capture information, first publication, registered subject matter, and alleged copying route separately.

To enable platform personnel to objectively understand the scope of rights and reasons for non-infringement, it is necessary to structure facts, laws and evidence.