Design Dead Copy: How a Major Legal Case is Shaking Up Asia’s Fashion and Eyewear Industry

Translation result

The Intellectual Property Office’s arrest and indictment of Blue Elephant’s CEO over alleged copies of Gentle Monster designs has jolted the fashion and eyewear world. It’s a landmark moment — showing criminal charges can follow when there’s clear, substantial copying, even if a design hasn’t been formally registered.

According to the Intellectual Property Office and the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, Blue Elephant’s CEO and associates are accused of selling 51 copied models created by photographing Gentle Monster’s hit styles and sending those photos to overseas manufacturers between February 2023 and June 2025.

They allegedly sold roughly 321,000 units, totaling about 12.3 billion KRW (approximately $9.23 million). Prosecutors also say they imported 44 models — about 413,000 units — between August 2023 and June 2025. Investigators estimate combined imports and sales reached around 730,000 items.

사진 찍어 생산지시서로…99% 일치한 ‘데드카피’
Prosecutors have indicted three people, including Blue Elephant’s CEO; the former CEO is in custody, while an employee and the company face trial. Investigators found Blue Elephant lacked an in-house design team.

The Intellectual Property Office says the company overlaid its own logo onto photos of the victim’s products and sent producers a bare-bones production order listing only color and quantity. Instead of blueprints, renderings, or detailed measurements, those product photos effectively functioned as build instructions. The knockoffs were manufactured overseas, imported, and sold in Korea — with some reportedly distributed abroad as well.

The copying was striking. Of the 51 models, 29 showed more than 95% line similarity when 3D scan profiles were compared within a 1 mm error margin; 18 matched over 99%. The industry is calling these “design dead copies.”

That said, outward similarity didn’t mean everything was identical — investigators noted differences in materials, manufacturing processes, and quality control. The imitations circulated at roughly one-sixth the price of the originals.

Unregistered designs can be punished…fashion industry’s gray zone shaken
This case hit a nerve because it punctures a long-standing “gray zone” in fashion: when shape-based designs aren’t registered, companies often felt powerless compared with trademark or counterfeiting claims.

Fashion and eyewear move fast, and brands can’t file design registrations for every style. The Intellectual Property Office confirmed all 51 copied items here were unregistered designs.

Eyewear is especially defined by silhouette — frame outline, lens proportions, temple curves, and front details often matter more than a logo. Even with logo changes, a similar shape can erode consumer perception and brand value. Gentle Monster reportedly suffered brand damage and lost sales because of the copies.

Investigators say the industry’s production and distribution model makes copying easier: ODM and overseas contract manufacturing mean suppliers can get samples, reverse-engineer them, and scale quickly. Supply chains that produce lookalikes from photos are not uncommon, and online marketplaces provide instant sales channels, making copying faster and cheaper than original creation.

The legal stakes are real. A 2017 amendment expanded protection so that selling or importing unregistered designs that copy product shapes can be criminally prosecuted. Unregistered designs are protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act for up to three years after completion; registered designs can get up to 20 years of protection. This case shows that the three-year window can practically protect trend-sensitive sectors like fashion.

Criminal penalties are now possible, but industry response starts now
The Intellectual Property Office pointed to three key evidentiary pillars in this case: objective similarity established by 3D scanning, proof that the victim’s design wasn’t merely a common industry form, and the production orders seized during raids.

Still, officials warn this doesn’t mean every design clash will become a criminal case. The law excludes product shapes that are the ordinary form for a given kind of goods or designs completed more than three years earlier. The core questions are whether a product shape shows originality and whether the copying amounts to substantial imitation beyond normal variation.

Practically, brands will likely change how they operate. Companies should prioritize registering designs with hit potential. Even if registration lags, brands need to document the creative process — sketches, prototype completion dates, revision histories, and production orders — to prove creation and release timelines. That shift brings both opportunity and burden for small fashion houses and indie designers: they now have a path to challenge malicious copying without registration, but gathering evidence and covering legal costs can be tough.

Gentle Monster’s operator, II Combined, said in a statement, “We hope this case becomes an important opportunity to protect design creation and fair competition.” Blue Elephant responded, “The investigation did not sufficiently reflect the fact that eyewear often necessarily shares ergonomic forms. We will earnestly present our case in court.”

An eyewear industry source noted that it was long assumed that differing logos made similar shapes hard to challenge. They predicted this case will push brands to register designs and manage evidence more proactively, and force platforms to tighten standards for policing similar products.