The Dreaded “Sales Suspended” Notification
For sellers on Coupang (Korea’s Amazon), speed is everything. A sudden notification of “Product Suspension due to Intellectual Property Infringement” is a nightmare scenario. It halts revenue instantly and strikes fear into the heart of any business owner.
However, the Coupang IP protection system, while necessary, is often triggered by “weak” or invalid rights. At Sarang IP, we have a proven track record of resolving these crises rapidly by submitting a formal Attorney Opinion Letter (Byeonlisa Sogyeonseo).
Here are two recent cases where we successfully restored our clients’ businesses by proving the accusations were groundless.
Case Study 1: The “Padded Pants” Design Dispute
Client: Company G (Fashion Apparel)
The Crisis: CEO Hong of Company G was selling padded winter trousers when he received a design infringement notice. A competitor claimed to hold a registered design for the pants and demanded Coupang take down the listing.
Online seller shocked by a Coupang product suspension notice citing intellectual property infringement 
Timeline analysis showing the accuser’s design filing date came after the padded pants were already selling
The Investigation: Sarang IP immediately conducted a timeline analysis.
- The Flaw: We discovered that the accuser’s design application date was after the product was already popular in the market.
- The Evidence: We utilized the “earliest review date” on Coupang itself, which predated the accuser’s filing. Furthermore, we found the exact same product on Chinese wholesale sites listed long before the patent application.
The Legal Argument: We drafted an Attorney Opinion Letter asserting that the design was a “Free-to-Use Design” (Freedom to Operate).
- Since the design lacked novelty (it was already public), the accuser’s registered right was effectively invalid.
- We cited Korean Supreme Court precedents stating that infringement cannot be asserted based on a patent that clearly lacks novelty, even if it is technically registered.
Korean Supreme Court precedent supporting a Free-to-Use Design defense against an invalid registered design 
Attorney opinion letter arguing the padded-pants design lacked novelty and was already in the public domain
The Result: Coupang accepted our legal assessment regarding the invalidity of the accuser’s rights and reinstated Company G’s sales.
Case Study 2: The “Phone Stand” Double Trouble
Client: Company H (Mobile Accessories)
The Crisis: CEO Baek of Company H faced a double threat: a complaint alleging both Design Patent Infringement AND Trademark Infringement for a mobile phone stand.
The Defense:
1. Design Defense: Similar to Case 1, we found prior art in Chinese design registries and past reviews proving the design was already in the public domain before the accuser filed for it. Thus, it was a “Free-to-Use Design.”
Prior art from Chinese design registries proving the phone stand design was already publicly available 
Trademark defense showing the brand name appeared through Coupang’s automated product-matching algorithm 
Screenshot of Coupang’s product-matching system inserting a brand keyword without the seller’s intent
2. Trademark Defense: The trademark issue was trickier. The accuser claimed their brand name was used in the listing.
- The System Error: We argued that the trademark appeared due to Coupang’s automated “Product Matching” system and keyword algorithms, not because the seller intentionally used the brand to deceive customers.
- Lack of Intent: Under Korean Trademark Law, infringement requires the use of a mark as a source identifier. We proved the term was used merely as a search keyword or category descriptor, lacking the “intent” required for infringement.
Coupang withdrawing both the design and trademark penalties after the attorney opinion letter defense 
Diagram of Korea’s Partial Examination System registering fast-moving designs without a novelty review
The Result: The Opinion Letter successfully clarified the distinction between algorithmic matching and actual infringement. Coupang withdrew the penalties for both the design and trademark claims.
Why “Attorney Opinion Letters” Work
In Korea, many design patents are registered under the “Partial Examination System” (for fast-moving goods like clothes and accessories). This means they are registered without a rigorous check for novelty. Consequently, many “rights” holding up sales on Coupang are actually invalid if challenged properly.
Coupang’s compliance team is not a court of law; they need a reason to feel safe reinstating a product. A formal Attorney Opinion Letter from a licensed Patent Attorney provides the legal cover and logical proof they need to reject the complainant’s request and reopen your store.
Conclusion
A sales suspension is not the end of the road. It is often just a procedural hurdle that requires a professional legal response.
At Sarang IP, we don’t just file paperwork; we investigate the history of the product to find the “smoking gun” that proves your innocence.
