Revisiting the Design After a Sales Suspension: A Coupang Jewelry Case

For online sellers, a sales suspension email is not just a notice. The product still exists, it's still in stock, and there's customer demand, but the sell button just stops. A single sentence stating that an intellectual property infringement report has been filed can result in sales disruption, advertising loss, inventory burden, and account risk for the seller.

This case also started with a report about a jewelry product. The types of reports were a combination of counterfeit product reports and design rights infringement claims. On the surface, it seems like an issue regarding a single bracelet product, but in actual review, two completely different questions arise. One question is whether this product was sold as if it were the original product of the right holder, and the other question is whether the design of the sold product is substantially similar to the registered design.

IPLEX's role was not to write an emotional rebuttal. It was a matter of dismantling the sales page and rights materials and reassembling them into a language that the platform could review. While unfairness is important to sellers, evidence and legal principles are important in platform review.

It’s easy for sellers to get defensive when the word “counterfeit” is used on the platform. However, when determining whether a product is counterfeit, you should first look at how the product's source is indicated rather than whether it simply looks similar. It is important whether the trademark and logo of the right holder are used, whether the product name or authentication text is used, and what kind of perception the entire detail page gives to consumers.

In this case, the opinion made it clear that neither the rights holder's mark nor the authenticity certification text was used on the sales page. The sold product was marked as a separate product, and there were circumstances in which the material, price, and product composition were different from the rights holder's genuine product. These factors serve as an important basis for explaining that it is unlikely that consumers will mistake the product for the original product of the right holder.

The key to responding to reports of counterfeit products is to show with verifiable data that “we never claimed to be that brand.” You must view the photo, detailed page, product name, price, material, packaging, and advertising text together. And the data must be connected with one logic in the statement of explanation.

Design rights do not protect an abstract style or concept. The starting point is the specific shapes, patterns, combinations, arrangement and proportions shown in the registration publication, assessed against the accused product.

The registered design in this case was not a simple circular bracelet. In the opinion, the dominant feature of the registered design was seen as a structure in which two rings of different widths and diameters intersect and penetrate each other. This structure creates a silhouette close to an X from the front and back, and the two rings overlap to create a complex and three-dimensional impression.

On the other hand, the sold product had a structure in which one band continued at a certain width. The surface had threaded patterns and cubic decorations, but there was no second ring, intersection, or penetration. The structure used was also different from the registered design, opening in a C shape by a hinge and joint on one side. This difference was not a minor decorative difference, but a difference that influenced the overall design.

A patent attorney's opinion for submission to the platform should not be as long as a judgment. However, just writing a conclusion like a simple confirmation letter is not enough. The important thing is to make it possible for reviewers to understand the structure of the case at a glance. In this case, “response to the counterfeiting allegation” and “design dissimilarity” were divided into separate chapters, and each chapter was linked to judgment criteria, facts, and conclusions.

In the section on reporting counterfeit goods, it was organized with a focus on non-use of the rights holder's mark, absence of genuine product certification text, independent indication of source on the sales page, and differences in material and price. In the design rights infringement section, the main points of the registered design, the structure of the sold product, differences in component units, whether they intersect or penetrate, arrangement of decorations, and open shape were compared in that order.

In the end, a good opinion is not a document that shouts, “It is not an infringement,” but a document that creates a path for the reader to follow why it is not an infringement. IPLEX comprised the path in two documents: a statement of explanation and a statement of opinion.

In this case, the issue of suspension of sales was resolved by submitting a patent attorney's opinion and explanation after the suspension of sales. The key to the solution is not to simply list legal provisions, but to organize the issues that the platform must judge based on actual data.

In some cases, you can get some idea of why a report was filed just by looking at the appearance of the product. However, the fact that a report has been received and the fact that an infringement has been established are different. The scope of registered design rights is determined by drawings and descriptions, and whether the sold product falls within that scope must be determined through specific comparison.

Online platforms move quickly. So sellers also need to move quickly. But fast alone is not enough. It is necessary to establish an accurate issue, select materials, organize legal principles, and be persuasive in the submitted documents.

Intellectual property rights protect their owners, but should not prevent lawful sales of products outside the scope of those rights. A platform’s suspension process must balance rights protection with legitimate trade.

What IPLEX emphasized in this case was the distance between the scope of rights of the registered design and the actual appearance of the sold product. Both products had something in common: they were bracelets and had decorations on the surface, but the double ring cross structure, which was the core of the registered design, and the single band structure of the sold product were clearly different.

All the seller has to do is translate that sense of “not similar” into legal language. In the process, the patent attorney's opinion serves as a bridge between sense and legal principles.

The risk of Coupang sales suspension, product deletion, and account suspension comes suddenly to the seller. However, the response should not be sudden. You need to preserve sales pages, check asserted rights, compare registration publications and product appearance, and condense logic to platform submission forms.

IPLEX IP Law Firm provides practical solutions based on its experience in writing explanatory statements and patent attorney opinions related to trademark, design, patent, copyright, and counterfeit product reports in online platform intellectual property disputes. From the moment sales are stopped, we review together what data should be collected, what expressions should be avoided, and what legal principles should be used.