"Using references in the fashion industry is a common phenomenon. However, we are legally disputing whether this violates the Unfair Competition Prevention Act." (Ko Kyung-min, CEO of Blue Elephant)
On the 12th, according to the retail industry, Blue Elephant, which had been called the "cost-effective Gentle Monster," recently appointed CEO Ko Kyung-min, a former attorney specializing in corporations, and moved to mount a legal defense. While acknowledging controversy over designs similar to Gentle Monster's, the company argues this was within the fashion industry's "reference culture."
Earlier, on Mar. in 2026, the Special Judicial Police for Technology and Design at the Ministry of Intellectual Property and the Patent Crime Investigation Division of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office indicted three people, including the head of Blue Elephant Co., on charges of violating the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of Trade Secrets for importing and selling products that copied the form of another party's goods.
Blue Elephant emphasizes that referencing the designs of first movers exists across the industry. Ko also delivered the message that "the market grows only when first movers and latecomers coexist."
However, prosecutors did not view this as mere reference. In Mar., former Blue Elephant CEO Choi Jin-woo was indicted and detained on charges of importing and selling copycat products. Observers say it is unusual for an Unfair Competition Prevention Act violation to progress from civil to criminal proceedings. During the investigation, 3D scans reportedly confirmed products with 99% similarity, and indications of organized copying were also recognized.
Performance pressures are also cited as a reason behind Blue Elephant's shift to an aggressive response. Blue Elephant's revenue last year was 50.6 billion won, up 69% from the previous year. In contrast, operating profit fell 74% to 3.3 billion won. Inventories rose 174%, and the inventory turnover ratio fell from 5.8 times to 2.8 times. Across the industry, there is a view that controversy continuing since last year also weighed on fundraising efforts.
In the fashion industry, the case has fueled debate over the line between "reference" and "imitation." Blue Elephant has said, "Most eyeglasses sold on the market look similar, so people do not recognize glasses without the Gentle Monster logo as Gentle Monster products," adding that "referencing prior products for glasses with a 'conventional form' is hard to view as unlawful."
However, on online communities and social networking services (SNS), there were many reactions calling Blue Elephant "Gentle Monster you can buy at one-fifth the price." Inside and outside the industry, some also note that if consumers naturally associated the products with a specific brand, it may have gone beyond mere reference.
In fact, in the consumer goods industry, "reference strategies" or "me-too strategies" that draw on hit products have recurred. Similar controversies have been common in the food sector. A representative case is the "Melona" dispute between Binggrae and Seojoo.
In 2023, Binggrae filed a lawsuit claiming Seojoo used packaging designs similar to its Melona. Binggrae launched Melona in 1992, but argued Seojoo engaged in unfair competition by selling a melon bar with a similar design since 2014. The first trial at the Seoul Central District Court judged the design to be general and ruled in favor of Seojoo, but the second trial at the Seoul High Court recognized the long-accumulated brand value and the likelihood of consumer confusion, and Binggrae won.
The case is now pending before the Supreme Court on appeal. The fact that the Supreme Court is hearing an appeal in a civil case indicates the bench considers it highly important. Attention is focused on how the legal outcomes of the disputes between Gentle Monster and Blue Elephant and between Binggrae and Seojoo will turn out. Is it reference, or unfair competition? As this is an era when loans are even extended against intellectual property (IP), it remains to be seen whether a different yardstick from the past will be applied.