{"id":3466,"date":"2025-12-04T10:39:21","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T01:39:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sarangip.com\/en\/?p=3466"},"modified":"2026-07-22T12:47:30","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T03:47:30","slug":"success-stories-ecommerce-sales-ban-defense-patent-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sarangip.com\/en\/success-stories-ecommerce-sales-ban-defense-patent-design\/","title":{"rendered":"[Success Stories] Unjust Sales Ban Lifted: Defending Against E-commerce IP Takedowns in Korea"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Monday Morning Shock<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For CEO Kwon of Company U, a leading supplier of school restroom partitions, business was steady on the “Welfare Mall”\u2014a closed e-commerce platform specifically for government employees and teachers. That was until he opened an email with the subject line: <Request for Clarification on Patent & Design Infringement>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A competitor, Company B, had filed a complaint with the platform, alleging that Company U\u2019s products infringed upon their patent and design rights. They demanded an immediate suspension of sales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"CEO
CEO of a school restroom partition supplier alarmed by an e-commerce patent and design infringement complaint<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In the fast-paced world of Korean e-commerce (including closed malls), a sales suspension is a death sentence. Platforms often default to suspending the accused product first to avoid liability. CEO Kwon faced imminent financial loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Strategy: A Two-Pronged Legal Defense<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

CEO Kwon immediately contacted Sarang IP. We knew that a simple emotional denial\u2014”We didn’t copy them”\u2014would not work. E-commerce legal teams require concrete legal evidence to reject a takedown request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We drafted a comprehensive Non-Infringement Opinion Letter<\/strong> focusing on two distinct legal arguments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

1. Design Rights: Proving “Different Aesthetic Impressions”<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Company B claimed the products looked the same. We countered by analyzing the Design Protection Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  • While the usage<\/strong> of the partitions was identical, the appearance<\/strong> was not.<\/li>
  • We provided a detailed visual comparison showing that the proportions and specific locations of the locking mechanisms (protrusions) were distinctly different.<\/li>
  • Conclusion:<\/strong> The two designs created a “different aesthetic impression” in the eyes of the consumer, meaning no design infringement occurred.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
    \"Design
    Design comparison showing the partition locking protrusions differ, creating a different aesthetic impression<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
    <\/div>\n\n\n\n

    2. Patent Rights: The “All Elements Rule”<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Company B also claimed patent infringement. Here, we applied the strict “All Elements Rule”<\/strong> (or Rule of Completeness).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    • For patent infringement to be established, the accused product must contain every single element<\/strong> listed in the competitor’s patent claim.<\/li>
    • We broke down Company B’s patent claims into individual components and compared them to Company U’s product.<\/li>
    • Discovery:<\/strong> Company U\u2019s product utilized a fundamentally different structural coupling method for one key component. Because this specific element from the patent was missing\/different in our client’s product, infringement could not be established.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
      \"Patent
      Patent claim analysis showing a different structural coupling method, so no infringement was established<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
      <\/div>\n\n\n\n

      The Result: Sales Ban Withdrawn<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      We submitted this detailed legal opinion to the Welfare Mall\u2019s compliance team. The logic was irrefutable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The platform acknowledged our legal analysis, agreeing that Company B\u2019s claims lacked merit. The threat of a sales ban was withdrawn, and Company U continued their business without interruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      In Korean e-commerce, competitors often use IP complaints as a tactic to disrupt rivals. However, a sudden warning letter does not mean the end of your business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      By responding with a professional opinion letter that clearly dissects the technical and legal differences, you can turn a crisis into a confirmation of your product’s legitimacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      A school partition supplier faced a sudden sales ban on a Korean Welfare Mall due to a competitor’s IP claim. Read how Sarang IP proved non-infringement and restored their business.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3896,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[127],"tags":[135,136,138,133,137],"class_list":["post-3466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-success-stories","tag-all-elements-rule-korea","tag-design-patent-non-infringement","tag-korean-ip-attorney","tag-patent-infringement-response-letter","tag-welfare-mall-sales-suspension","category-127","description-off"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t