COPY DETECTIVE

Copy Detective

Is everything that looks alike a copy?

From the original launch to licences, company responses, lawsuits and the final ruling. Look at how it actually ended, not at how alike it looks.

Confirmed vs widely believed Find a case 한국어

An allegation is not a finding

This is a record of outcomes, not an exposé. The five layers below are kept apart, and without a court or IP-office decision we write “no infringement established”. Community claims alone never put a case in the infringement column.

01 SimilarityDoes it look alike?
02 AllegationWas copying actually alleged?
03 Legal ClaimDid a rights holder take legal action?
04 Legal OutcomeDid a court or IP office find infringement?
05 Final StatusWhere does it stand now?

FEATURED

Featured: Pocky vs Pepero

Who came first: Pocky 1966 → Pepero 1983, 17 years apart
What looks alike: Chocolate-coated stick shape
Licence: None found (not a finding of illegality)
Lawsuit: Glico’s US trade-dress suit — none found in Korea
Outcome: INFRINGEMENT REJECTED Infringement rejected (US trade-dress suit)

Reasons and timeline · The box-design case between the same companies went the other way: Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier

CONFIRMED INFRINGEMENT vs INTERNET COPY MYTH

Confirmed by a court vs widely believed but not established

Confirmed infringement (2)

INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED
Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier
Original Bâton d'or (2012) · Compared Pepero Premier · Gap unknown
Alleged: Packaging, Colour scheme · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 1
Infringement confirmed (design right, first instance)
INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED
Hermès Kelly/Birkin vs PLAYNOMORE
Original Kelly bag, Birkin bag · Compared “Eyes” bags · Gap unknown
Alleged: Product shape, Trade dress · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 3
Unfair competition found (Supreme Court remand)

“Known as a copy — but what did the court say?” (3)

INFRINGEMENT REJECTED
Pocky vs Pepero
Original Pocky (1966) · Compared Pepero (1983) · 17 years later
Alleged: Product shape, Trade dress · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 1
Infringement rejected (US trade-dress suit)
NO FORMAL OUTCOME
Kinoko no Yama vs Choco Songi
Original Kinoko no Yama (1975) · Compared Choco Songi (1984) · 9 years later
Alleged: Product shape · Licence: Unknown · Legal dispute: none found
No formal outcome
INFRINGEMENT REJECTED
Orion Choco Pie vs Lotte Choco Pie
Original Choco Pie (1974) · Compared Lotte Choco Pie (1979) · 5 years later
Alleged: Product name, Product shape · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 1
Infringement rejected (generic term)

The right column holds rejected claims, cases with no formal outcome and allegation-only cases.

SETTLED · LICENSED

Settled disputes and licensed products

SETTLED
Amorepacific vs LG H&H — cushion compact patent
Original Air Cushion · Compared Cushion products · Gap unknown
Alleged: Technology, Container · Licence: Licence confirmed · Legal dispute: 1
Settled (no final ruling)
SETTLED
Apple iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy — US design patents
Original iPhone · Compared Galaxy smartphones · Gap unknown
Alleged: Product shape, UI · Licence: Unknown · Legal dispute: 2
Settled (US)

No “mistaken for a copy but actually licensed” case has a confirmed contract yet. The cushion dispute ended in a cross-licence.

COPY GENEALOGY

One line of stick snacks

1966Original: Glico Pocky
1983Similar product: Lotte Pepero — US trade-dress claim rejected
1990s~Own culture: Pepero Day on 11 Nov (as reported)
2015 rulingDerivative: Pepero Premier box — design infringement (first instance)

Within one product line, the shape (functional, unprotectable) and the box design (infringing) went opposite ways. Whether a follower grew its own identity is recorded only with evidence.

SEARCH · FILTER

Find a case

Search product, brand, company or court

7 cases · Country pairs describe single cases, never whole countries.

INFRINGEMENT REJECTED
Pocky vs Pepero
Original Pocky (1966) · Compared Pepero (1983) · 17 years later
Alleged: Product shape, Trade dress · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 1
Infringement rejected (US trade-dress suit)
NO FORMAL OUTCOME
Kinoko no Yama vs Choco Songi
Original Kinoko no Yama (1975) · Compared Choco Songi (1984) · 9 years later
Alleged: Product shape · Licence: Unknown · Legal dispute: none found
No formal outcome
INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED
Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier
Original Bâton d'or (2012) · Compared Pepero Premier · Gap unknown
Alleged: Packaging, Colour scheme · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 1
Infringement confirmed (design right, first instance)
INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED
Hermès Kelly/Birkin vs PLAYNOMORE
Original Kelly bag, Birkin bag · Compared “Eyes” bags · Gap unknown
Alleged: Product shape, Trade dress · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 3
Unfair competition found (Supreme Court remand)
INFRINGEMENT REJECTED
Orion Choco Pie vs Lotte Choco Pie
Original Choco Pie (1974) · Compared Lotte Choco Pie (1979) · 5 years later
Alleged: Product name, Product shape · Licence: No licence found (not a finding of illegality) · Legal dispute: 1
Infringement rejected (generic term)
SETTLED
Amorepacific vs LG H&H — cushion compact patent
Original Air Cushion · Compared Cushion products · Gap unknown
Alleged: Technology, Container · Licence: Licence confirmed · Legal dispute: 1
Settled (no final ruling)
SETTLED
Apple iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy — US design patents
Original iPhone · Compared Galaxy smartphones · Gap unknown
Alleged: Product shape, UI · Licence: Unknown · Legal dispute: 2
Settled (US)

Cases per field (as collected): Food 4 · Fashion 1 · Beauty 1 · Electronics 1. More cases collected does not mean an industry copies more.

COPY CONTROVERSY TIMELINE

By decade

1960s: 1966 · Pocky vs Pepero — Glico launches Pocky
1970s: 1974 · Orion Choco Pie vs Lotte Choco Pie — Orion launches Choco Pie1975 · Kinoko no Yama vs Choco Songi — Meiji launches Kinoko no Yama1979 · Orion Choco Pie vs Lotte Choco Pie — Lotte launches its Choco Pie
1980s: 1983 · Pocky vs Pepero — Lotte launches Pepero (17 years later)1984 · Kinoko no Yama vs Choco Songi — Orion launches Choco Songi (9 years later)
1990s: 1990s~ · Pocky vs Pepero — Pepero Day (11 Nov) became its own Korean custom, reportedly started by students in the 1990s1997 · Orion Choco Pie vs Lotte Choco Pie — Orion brings trademark proceedings
2000s: 2001 · Orion Choco Pie vs Lotte Choco Pie — Supreme Court: “Choco Pie” is generic — Orion loses
2010s: 2011~2012 · Apple iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy — US design patents — Apple alleges design and utility patent infringement2012 · Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier — Glico launches Bâton d'or2012 · Amorepacific vs LG H&H — cushion compact patent — Amorepacific sues for patent infringement2012~2015 · Amorepacific vs LG H&H — cushion compact patent — LG H&H counter-sues for invalidity; three-year fight2014~2015 · Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier — Glico sues for design-right infringement2015 · Pocky vs Pepero — Glico files a US trade-dress suit2015-08-21 · Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier — Seoul Central District Court finds infringement — injunction and destruction2015-08 · Bâton d'or vs Pepero Premier — Lotte: “a common curved box”, appeal undecided2015 · Hermès Kelly/Birkin vs PLAYNOMORE — Hermès sues for unfair competition2015-11-12 · Amorepacific vs LG H&H — cushion compact patent — Cross-licence; all suits withdrawn2017-02-16 · Hermès Kelly/Birkin vs PLAYNOMORE — Seoul High Court reverses2018-05 · Apple iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy — US design patents — Jury verdict $539m2018-06-27 · Apple iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy — US design patents — Settled and dismissed (terms undisclosed)
2020s: 2020-07-09 · Hermès Kelly/Birkin vs PLAYNOMORE — Supreme Court remands, finding misappropriation2021-01-26 · Pocky vs Pepero — Third Circuit: Pocky’s design is functional and unprotectable — Lotte’s win affirmed

FINAL STATUS

How final status is assigned

LICENSED: Licence, partnership or OEM confirmed
SIMILARITY ONLY: Looks alike; no formal allegation or dispute
PUBLIC ALLEGATION: Copying alleged by consumers or press
COMPANY DISPUTE: Companies publicly claim and rebut
LEGAL DISPUTE: Litigation pending or outcome unconfirmed
INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED: A court or IP office found infringement or unfair competition
INFRINGEMENT REJECTED: A court or IP office rejected the rights holder’s claim
SETTLED: Ended by settlement, no final ruling
NO FORMAL OUTCOME: Talked about, but no legal proceeding or ruling found
UNKNOWN: Not enough material

Rights: Trademark · Design right · Patent · Copyright · Unfair competition · Trade dress · Trade secret · Other. Ideas and business models may get little protection, so rights and actual rulings are listed separately.

Source tiers: A court / IP office / government / contract · B company statement · C press · D community / social

Priority: Court rulings → IP office → IP Trial and Appeal Board → Government, FTC, customs → Company statements → Official launch material → Reputable press → Academic / industry → Community. No labels like “thief” or “knock-off company”; official decisions are summarised as they are, and only individual products and companies are discussed, never whole countries.

USER REPORT