Retail News CRM

Tag: copycat

  • Gentle Monster, Backed by Google and LVMH, Fights Copycat Designs with Legal Firepower: Blue Elephant under Scrutiny

    Gentle Monster, Backed by Google and LVMH, Fights Copycat Designs with Legal Firepower: Blue Elephant under Scrutiny

    Gentle Monster, an eyewear brand under the ownership of Iicombined, has initiated legal proceedings against a fellow Korean eyewear company, Blue Elephant. The controversy revolves around accusations that Blue Elephant has been replicating Gentle Monster’s product designs and conceptual designs used in physical retail spaces.

    Alleged Copying of Product Designs

    Iicombined has confirmed that Gentle Monster, a brand that has garnered financial support from investment firms connected to Google and LVMH, does not maintain any business or production affiliations with other eyewear corporations. During an internal probe, it was discovered that Blue Elephant had a minimum of 30 eyewear items bearing a significant likeness to those of Gentle Monster.

    It has been noted that Blue Elephant’s products, similar in design, are retailed at a fraction of the price of those produced by Gentle Monster.

    Legal Responses and Actions

    In response to the alleged infringements, a design invalidation trial was lodged with the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board in March 2025. The board’s decision on the matter is still awaited.

    Iicombined is taking a two-pronged legal approach in its pursuit of justice. In December 2024, a criminal complaint was registered against Blue Elephant with investigative authorities. This was followed by a lawsuit in October 2025, in which Iicombined sought an injunction and damages under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

    Questions & Answers

    What are the allegations against Blue Elephant?
    Blue Elephant is accused of replicating Gentle Monster’s product designs and physical retail space concepts.

    What legal actions has Iicombined undertaken?
    Iicombined has initiated both civil and criminal legal proceedings against Blue Elephant, including filing a design invalidation trial and a criminal complaint. In addition, they have sought an injunction and damages under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

    What was the outcome of the internal investigation conducted by Iicombined?
    The internal investigation by Iicombined revealed that Blue Elephant had at least 30 eyewear items that bore a significant resemblance to Gentle Monster’s designs.

  • Police investigate Saigon Beer copycat

    Police investigate Saigon Beer copycat

    Police in Ba Ria-Vung Tau Province are investigating a copyright infringement involving Saigon Beer by a former employee of its brewer, Sabeco. They found over 9,000 boxes of the Saigon Vietnam Beer with the brand name and packaging similar to that of the 43-year old Saigon Beer brand produced by Sabeco, the largest brewer in Vietnam.

    The beer is distributed by the Saigon Vietnam Beer Group Jsc., not a subsidiary of Sabeco. Its CEO, Le Dinh Trung, held several positions in Sabeco for years, including assistant to the deputy CEO and head of its legal department.

    Another person involved in the copyright infringement is Tran Thi Ai Loan, a distributor of Sabeco beer for the last four years.

    The original headquarter address of Saigon Vietnam Beer Group Jsc was registered at Floor 9, Vincom Building, 72 Le Thanh Ton, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, the same as Sabeco. Although the Saigon Vietnam Beer Group Jsc. later changed its headquarters to a different location in Binh Thanh District, its beer packaging carried the old address, confusing customers.

    Authorities said Loan, as a legal representative, had signed a contract with BiVa Beer Brewer in southern Ba Ria–Vung Tau Province to produce the Saigon Vietnam Beer and started distributing the product in May.

    The same month, Sabeco requested the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute to inspect the similarities between the packaging and brand name of the two beers. The institute concluded in June that there were signs of copyright infringement, following which Sabeco requested market authorities to intervene.

    Authorities later found thousands of Saigon Vietnam Beer boxes in the southern localities of Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Binh Phuoc, Soc Trang and Can Tho as well as the Central Highlands province of Dak Lak. Each box was being sold at VND159,300 ($6.91), nearly 12 percent lower than that of Sabeco’s Saigon Beer.

    Vu Tuan Chau, owner of BiVa Beer Brewer, told authorities that they had distributed a total of 4,400 boxes so far. Chau said they only produced the beer to the requirements of Saigon Beer Vietnam and was not aware of any copyright infringement. A lawyer representing Sabeco said that the infringement has damaged their brand’s reputation and misled customers into purchasing the wrong product. Sabeco is working with authorities to continue the investigation, the lawyer said.

    No comments were available from the representatives of Saigon Beer Vietnam at the time of going to print.

    Lees ook:

    Lees ook:

    Lees ook:

    Lees ook:

  • Jaguar Land Rover wins case in China against Evoque copycat

    Jaguar Land Rover wins case in China against Evoque copycat

    Jaguar Land Rover won a legal victory and compensation after a court in China ruled that the Jiangling Motor’s Landwind X7 SUV was too similar to the Range Rover Evoque. The Beijing Chaoyang District Court agreed with JLR that that Landwind copied five unique features of the Evoque, which led to widespread customer confusion, JLR said.

    The court ruled that Landwind must pay JLR compensation. The ruling refers to the original Landwind X7 from 2014 rather than the more recent facelifted model, which toned down some of the more blatant similarities, JLR said. Landwind can continue selling the facelifted version.

    The two SUVs have a similar shape, with the roof and windows tapering from front to back, and near-identical tail lights and character lines on the side paneling.

    JLR said the court’s decision suggests China is taking copying claims more seriously. “This ruling is a clear sign of the law being implemented appropriately to protect consumers and uphold their rights so that they are not confused or misled, while protecting business investment in design and innovation,” Keith Benjamin, Jaguar Land Rover’s legal affairs chief, said in a statement.

    Western automakers have faced difficulties in China caused by domestic brand imitating their designs.  Also, a lawsuit can be bad for branding if the Chinese public think a foreign company is bullying domestic competitors.

    “The ruling is highly significant,” said Michael Dunne, CEO of Hong Kong-based automotive consultant firm ZoZoG. “For years, foreign companies have taken Chinese rivals to court for purloining designs and lost. GM, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, you name it.”

    At certain times, Chinese leaders will allow a high-profile foreign “win” in order to win international support, Dunne said.

    JLR had its patent on the shape of the Evoque canceled in China in 2016 after a court ruled it was void because the company had patented it outside China first. It responded by suing Jiangling.

    The new Evoque will be launched in China in April.

    Landwind is one of the few Chinese automakers that does not break down its sales by model, but industry observers estimated the X7 accounted for the bulk of the brand’s 80,000 sales in 2016 at the height of the SUV’s popularity. The X7 costs from the equivalent of 17,100 euros in China, compared to almost 50,000 euros for the Evoque.

    The new Range Rover Evoque will be launched in China in April.

    Landwind sold 2,746 cars in China in the first two months, making it the 61st best-selling brand, according to figures from sales aggregator Bestsellingcarsblog.com. Land Rover was No. 59 with 3,342 sales, down 61 percent on the year before. Jaguar was No. 68 with sales down 60 percent to 1,931.

    JLR’s court victory is rare in China where courts often side with domestic automakers. Fiat lost a case against Great Wall in 2008 after a court ruled that the GW Peri was not a direct copy of Fiat’s Panda, despite strong similarities. Fiat was ordered to pay court costs.

    More successful was German coach-maker Neoplan in 2006, after a court ruled that the A9 bus made by the Zonda Industrial Group was a direct copy of the Neoplan Starliner. Zonda was ordered to stop making and selling the bus and ordered to pay 20-million-yuan compensation to Neoplan.

    JLR’s China deliveries fell 22 percent to 115,000 last year after the automaker faced quality problems that caused Jaguar and Land Rover owners to protest outside its China headquarters in Shanghai.

    Lees ook: