The so-called "copycat" strategy of referencing existing products for rapid market penetration is at an inflection point.
That is because disputes over design similarities have been growing recently, and in some cases even company heads have been detained on suspicion of product copying. Consumer goods companies have begun overhauling internal procedures, such as keeping records of the product design process.
As of the 30th, according to the startup industry, some consumer goods startup officials are seeking advice from experts, including patent attorneys, to check whether their products are copies and whether there is a possibility of intellectual property (IP) infringement. These startups said they proceeded with development by referencing similar products already on the market during the process of launching their own products.
A patent attorney said, "We are seeing consultations seeking to assess the likelihood of punishment or disputes when design, configuration, or user experience is similar," adding, "Even companies that have already launched products are showing demand to reduce the potential for infringement."
This trend accelerated about two weeks ago when the Ministry of Intellectual Property's Special Judicial Police for Technology and Design and the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office's Patent Crime Investigation Department detained the founder of Blue Elephant on suspicion of copying the form of Gentle Monster eyeglasses and sunglasses. This is the first detention on the grounds that a company directly copied another firm's product. In particular, it overturned the perception that "punishment is difficult without a registered design right."
Choi, who founded Blue Elephant in 2019, is suspected of producing copycat products by personally photographing Gentle Monster's popular items and sending the images to an overseas manufacturer while lacking in-house design development staff.
In the wake of this case, some startups and small manufacturers that make and sell consumer goods such as apparel and food are considering revising their business strategies.
Among companies employing copycat strategies and sole proprietors running small manufacturing firms, there is growing tension as awareness spreads that design disputes could lead to criminal punishment beyond civil lawsuits such as damage claims. Design-related trials are a common source of disputes, with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board handling about 300 to 400 cases each year.
Experts say the response strategies of startups and small manufacturers have become more important than before. They note a growing need to systematically manage materials that can prove not only product design right filings but also the design creation process. For latecomers, it is essential to review development records and conduct prior art checks to identify general forms and points of differentiation in advance.
Attorney and patent attorney An Seul-a of Daejin Law Firm predicted, "In each individual case, the key issue will be whether the form falls within the ordinary range and whether it infringes on a creative achievement."
An added, "The likelihood has grown that business models based on simple imitation will gradually contract," and, "A warning bell has sounded across markets where 'form itself is the competitiveness,' such as fashion, everyday consumer goods, and interior products."
Within the industry, the recent demand for consultations is also being seen as a signal of changes in business strategy beyond legal responses.
An official at a consumer goods startup said, "There is growing sentiment that, rather than responding after problems arise post-launch, we should consult patent attorneys from the initial planning stage to review differentiation from similar products," adding, "We are also seeing moves to refine internal procedures by keeping not only design records but also development logs and the bases for decisions."