The South Korean eyewear industry has found itself at the center of a storm, as a high-profile legal dispute between two of its most prominent brands—Gentle Monster and Blue Elephant—has escalated into a test case for design protection and fair competition. What began as whispers of imitation has now erupted into a full-blown courtroom drama, with ripple effects shaking the entire fashion and design ecosystem in the country.
On March 17, 2026, Blue Elephant issued an official statement regarding the arrest and indictment of its former CEO, Choi Jin-woo, who faces charges of violating unfair competition laws by allegedly copying the designs of Gentle Monster’s eyewear and sunglasses. According to multiple reports, including from Apparel News and NewsiS, Choi was detained after the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office and the Intellectual Property Office’s special investigation unit found substantial evidence that Blue Elephant had produced and sold eyewear products bearing a striking resemblance to Gentle Monster’s bestsellers.
The numbers are staggering. Investigators allege that from February 2023 to June 2025, Blue Elephant sold around 320,000 imitation products, generating approximately 12.3 billion KRW (about $9.2 million USD) in sales. A detailed 3D scanning analysis, cited by The Fact and NewsiS, revealed that 29 out of 50 scrutinized items had over 95% similarity to Gentle Monster’s originals, with 18 products reaching a “dead copy” level of 99% or more. In one especially telling example, the lenses of Blue Elephant’s version of Gentle Monster’s 2021 ‘JEFF’ model were reportedly interchangeable with the original, demonstrating just how close the imitations were.
But the controversy stretches beyond mere product similarities. Gentle Monster’s parent company, i.i Combined, claims the imitation extended to pouch designs, store layouts, and even the overall brand experience. The company has filed both civil and criminal lawsuits, and has also initiated an invalidation trial for the allegedly copied pouch design at the Patent Court, as reported by The Fact.
In a statement released on the same day, i.i Combined emphasized the broader implications of the case: “We hope this case becomes an important turning point for protecting design creation and a fair competitive environment,” the company stated, according to NewsiS. “Protecting intellectual property rights is not just a matter between companies—it’s a question of the industry’s sustainability.” The company also pointed out that creating a single eyewear product typically takes about 13 months and involves around 50 professionals, underscoring the investment and creativity at stake.
Blue Elephant, for its part, has mounted a vigorous defense. The company insists that eyewear, by its ergonomic nature, inevitably shares similar shapes—a point it claims was insufficiently considered during the investigation. “Due to the ergonomic structure of eyewear, similar forms are unavoidable,” Blue Elephant argued in its official statement, as quoted by Apparel News and ZDNet Korea. “Referencing prior products is a common industry practice.” The company also stressed that most eyewear in the market looks alike, and that without logos, it’s rare for consumers to mistake one brand’s product for another.
Blue Elephant further contends that the law itself recognizes these industry realities. “The Unfair Competition Prevention Act stipulates that the typical forms of goods in the same category are not subject to protection,” the company asserted. Blue Elephant also pushed back against accusations of profiteering through low-cost copies, stating its 2025 operating margin was just 5.4% due to heavy investments in branding, global expansion, and product quality.
Despite the ongoing legal tussle, Blue Elephant has taken significant steps to address the controversy and prevent future issues. The company halted sales of the disputed products as soon as it became aware of the complaint in April 2025, voluntarily submitted all remaining inventory to prosecutors, and has since reinforced its internal compliance systems. Since 2025, Blue Elephant has hired 19 specialized design staff and established an IP compliance system with in-house and external patent experts. It has also expanded its R&D investment from 2% to 3% of sales, reflecting a commitment to independent innovation.
Leadership at Blue Elephant has also undergone a shakeup. After Choi Jin-woo’s resignation and complete withdrawal from management, the company transitioned to a professional management structure. At a shareholder meeting on March 3, 2026, CFO Yoon In-cheol and CLO Ko Kyung-min were appointed as co-CEOs, with a stated goal of growing Blue Elephant into a global startup under new stewardship.
The legal case itself is noteworthy for another reason: it marks the first time in South Korea that criminal prosecution has been pursued based solely on the imitation of unregistered product shapes, rather than registered design rights. This distinction, highlighted by NewsiS and Business Post, sets a precedent that could influence future disputes not only in eyewear but across the broader fashion and design industries.
The shockwaves from this dispute have reignited debates about the blurry line between inspiration and imitation in design-heavy sectors. Some in the industry point to similar past battles, such as the 2017 legal fight between Adidas and Puma over stripe patterns. As one anonymous fashion industry insider told The Fact, “Fashion and eyewear are industries where function and design are inseparable, so these controversies are bound to happen. But if a brand’s philosophy and identity are copied wholesale, and if that results in profits based on another brand’s reputation, it can erode trust in the market itself.”
The legal wrangling is far from over. Blue Elephant has pledged to “faithfully explain its position during the trial process” and continues to argue that the ergonomic and market-driven nature of eyewear design makes some degree of similarity unavoidable. Meanwhile, i.i Combined remains steadfast in its call for stronger protections for creativity and fair play.
For now, the South Korean eyewear market watches closely, aware that the outcome of this case could redraw the boundaries of design, competition, and innovation for years to come.