Can you protect your design and functionality even if they are copied? The reality and choices of creators facing "imitation"

Series: Structural Changes in the Shopify App Market, Part 3 of 3

This series explores the structural changes occurring in the Shopify app market in the era of generative AI, from three perspectives: "first-party integration" where the platform itself incorporates excellent features, the "AI slop" phenomenon of poor-quality apps flooding the market due to generative AI, and the reality and choices faced by creators confronted with "imitation." This three-part column is intended for both merchants (store operators) who choose apps and developers who create them.

• Part 1: Shopify Apps Becoming First-Party by 2026 – How to Choose and Create Apps
• Part 2: Even Apple Can't Prevent the Flood of "AI Slop Apps" – How Merchants Can Protect Themselves in an Era of Exploding Apps
• Part 3: Can Your Designs and Features Be Protected Even If Imitated? – The Reality and Choices of Creators Facing "Imitation" (This article)

Introduction: The Question This Series Ultimately Explored

In this series, we have been tracking the structural changes in the Shopify platform.

Part 1 covered "first-party integration (Sherlocking)," where the platform itself incorporates excellent features as standard. Part 2 addressed the phenomenon of generative AI lowering the barrier to app creation, leading to a flood of low-quality "AI slop apps," and self-defense strategies for merchants (store operators).

Both of these are different angles of the same structure, where those who "incorporate later" or "imitate in large quantities" tend to have an advantage over those who "create good things."

This time, from the perspective of creators, we will directly address the central question of this structure: What can we do when something we have created with time and cost is imitated? And are "first-movers" truly rewarded?

This is not just a concern for Shopify app developers. It applies to all businesses that are "first to create"—original products, unique store designs, accumulated customer data.

"Being Imitated" Is Not Limited to Apps

Imitation is not a problem limited to app developers. In the e-commerce and manufacturing industries, "pioneers being imitated" occurs in various forms.

• The specifications and packaging of a hit product are reproduced in a very similar form by a latecomer.
• Carefully crafted store designs and copy (text) are used directly.
• Unique know-how and business flows are observed from outside and imitated.
• And customer information and order data, which are fundamental to the business, are taken or extracted illicitly.

The common thread is the reality that "the more ill-defined a value, the easier it is to imitate and the harder it is to protect." Tangible deliverables are more likely to be targets of imitation, and there is a significant gap between the feeling of "similarity" and what is legally recognized as "infringement of rights."

We ourselves have faced this issue multiple times with the apps we provide. In the next chapter, we will share our firsthand experiences.

Our Firsthand Experience: Realizing Features Can't Be Protected, But Still Filing a Claim for App Icon Imitation

While I will omit specific names, I will share two incidents our company experienced in chronological order. This is not to criticize any particular company, but to share insights so that others in similar situations do not needlessly struggle.

Several Years Ago: An Incident Where We Felt "Features Were Copied"

Regarding a paid app we provided, there was an incident where a later app appeared to have almost entirely imitated its interface and features. When we consulted with a lawyer, the legal opinion was clear.

In Japanese copyright law, interfaces and features "themselves"—that is, the overall framework such as screen composition and operation mechanisms—are generally not protected. From this perspective, it is difficult to claim copyright infringement based solely on "similar features"—this was the reality.

We considered consulting the platform, but we realized at that time that it is extremely difficult, under the system, to stop imitation based on "similar features."

Recently: That's Why We Filed a Claim for an "Icon" Instead of a Feature

Subsequently, with a different product, an incident occurred where the icon of a later app was strikingly similar to our company's icon. While the functionalities were also similar, given our past experience that "claims based on feature similarity are difficult to get through," we deliberately refrained from filing a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) removal request based on features. Technical investigation at the code level also did not confirm clear evidence of imitation or copying, leading to the conclusion that it was an independent development.

Instead, we focused on the "striking similarity of the icon," which is a relatively easier point of contention, and filed a DMCA claim with the platform, accompanied by the fact of our earlier release.

The result was a rejection. The main reasons were as follows:

• Copyright could not be confirmed - The commonalities were limited to a very small portion of the motif, and differences in background color and composition led to it being judged as a "different design."
• Actions based on trademark rights were not possible - Our app icon's trademark was unregistered.
• No actual damage was confirmed at present - There was no impact on installation numbers or confusion in inquiries.

We accept the platform's conclusion that "no action can be taken based on DMCA" and its reasons. At the same time, we keenly felt the reality that even when pursuing a legitimate course, the path to countering imitation is far more arduous than imagined.

Why Can't "Imitation" Be Stopped? — The Boundaries of the System

Behind our experience lies the philosophy of Japan's copyright law and intellectual property system. Let me simplify the key points using easy-to-understand terms.

Copyright protects "expression," not "ideas or functions." This is an international fundamental principle of copyright law known as the "idea-expression dichotomy." Copyright protects "creative expressions of thoughts or feelings," not the underlying ideas or functions themselves. App UIs and functions often have strong practical purposes and tend to be evaluated as "common expressions" or "expressions with virtually no alternatives due to functional constraints," thus making it difficult to recognize their originality (creativity).

For icons and designs, specific similarity is individually questioned. While copyright may be recognized for logos and icons, whether infringement actually occurs is an individual judgment based on factual circumstances such as the degree of similarity and notoriety. If "only a portion of the motifs are common," it is often judged as a different design.

Trademarks are generally based on "registration." While injunctions based on trademark rights are powerful, they generally require trademark registration. However, even without trademark registration, protection under prior use rights or the Unfair Competition Prevention Act may be recognized under certain conditions. Nevertheless, the application of these requires fulfilling legal requirements, such as the notoriety of the goods/services and the likelihood of confusion, making the hurdle by no means low.

DMCA is not a panacea. DMCA is a system based on copyright infringement. Therefore, if copyright cannot be confirmed, no action will be taken even if a claim is filed.

In other words, the system tends to protect cases where rights infringement can be objectively proven, such as unauthorized reproduction of source code or use of registered trademarks. On the other hand, elements such as ideas, functions, service concepts, and usability, even if they "feel similar," may not be easily subject to legal protection. As we have actually experienced, there is a surprisingly large gap between feeling something is "similar" and it being recognized as "infringement of rights."

Are "First Movers" Truly Rewarded?

In the English-speaking world, a penguin that is the first to jump into the sea from its colony is called a "first penguin," a brave pioneer. In business, too, those who take risks and are the first to open up a market are lauded.

However, the reality is a bit more complex. In the market, it often happens that those who enter later and act more strategically succeed more than those who started first. Pioneers bear the costs of cultivating the market (education, failures, trial and error), while latecomers can observe the results and enter in a refined manner. This phenomenon, known as "first-mover disadvantage," has long been recognized in business administration.

The structure we've seen throughout this series was exactly this. Platforms incorporate excellent features (Part 1), and AI mass-produces imitations of popular existing apps at low cost (Part 2). And we ourselves, as first-movers, faced the institutional inadequacy of means to counter imitation.

We are not going to lament this reality emotionally. What's important is to correctly understand the structure where "pioneers tend to lose out" and then consider where to find the value in still pioneering.

Technology Progresses Through "Combination" – The Boundary Between Imitation and Creation

Here, something must be stated fairly.

Fundamentally, the advancement of technology and ideas is based on a universal mechanism of combining existing elements to gradually create new ones. Completely original inventions are rare; all creation is a "combination" of accumulated prior work. Our own products are also built upon preceding technologies and ideas.

Drawing a line for "imitation of ideas themselves" is inherently very difficult. In a sense, many things in the world are imitations of something else, and it is not necessarily bad for good ideas to be imitated and spread. Rather, there is even a positive aspect where excellent solutions spread throughout society through imitation, solving more problems—"the purpose is achieved through imitation."

Why do we feel aversion to the imitation of ideas and functions? Upon deep consideration, it may be because it is an act of simply copying another's design or function and offering it as a paid service, purely for profit-seeking, without any regard for the creator's struggles or love for the product.

This might be at its root the same problem as the "cheap, low-quality imitations" that famous brands have long suffered from. Beyond the actual business damage, the aversion to the act itself, which lacks respect for the creator—isn't this a sentiment many creators can empathize with? Of course, it's not necessary to get upset about every such imitation; often, it's better to ignore them and pursue one's own path. Still, excessive imitation can indeed be upsetting. We do not deny that honest feeling.

Furthermore, we want to draw a line based on whether we are "respecting the accumulated work of our predecessors and adding something new, such as our own original experiences and problem awareness. Or are we simply harvesting the value that others have cultivated, without adding anything new?" The former is creation, and the latter, even if not illegal under the system, can be said to be an act that questions the creator's integrity.

Nevertheless, Creating from Firsthand Experience – Our Stance

At Flagship, we have always valued product development that is closely aligned with the voices of those directly involved, their firsthand experiences, and actual needs. We pride ourselves on consciously differentiating ourselves from approaches that prioritize profit above all else, producing a large volume of apps simply hoping one will hit big.

Of course, this is not to say that "seeking profit is bad." Strategy and revenue are essential for a company to survive and continue delivering good products. Nevertheless, we dare to ask:

Will society truly improve through profit-seeking alone? Where is our integrity as creators, as engineers and producers?

Precisely because we are in an era where mass production and mass imitation seem efficient, we believe that the quality of the motivation behind "why we create" is being questioned more than ever. Products created out of someone's immediate problem, versus those mass-produced simply because they "might hit big"—even if the short-term market cannot differentiate them, in the long run, a clear difference emerges in terms of robust operation, support, and the depth of trust. As seen in Part 1 and Part 2, in the era of AI and platforms, what ultimately remains is precisely this "trust."

We are rapidly getting used to things created by AI. A daily life where we interact with AI-generated texts, images, and apps without discomfort has become commonplace. Nevertheless—considering that our hearts and eyes are still captivated by paintings, sculptures, and architecture from thousands of years ago, perhaps humans are ultimately beings who find value in things created with time and emotion. No matter how much technology advances, this feeling remains unchanged. To say "is there love in it?" might be a bit dramatic, but people are surprisingly sensitive to whether the creator's heart is imbued. And this is something that AI, platforms, and imitators cannot easily replicate.

Therefore, even understanding the structure where first-movers tend to lose out, we will continue to choose to create from firsthand experience. We believe that this is value that is difficult to imitate, and strength that remains unshaken even if imitated.

Conclusion: If You Can't Protect It Even If It's Copied, What Do You Build?

"Can your design and features be protected even if they're copied?"—The answer from the systemic side to this article's question, unfortunately, is "in many cases, it cannot be fully protected." The scope of what copyright, trademarks, and DMCA can protect is limited, and the path to countering imitation is arduous. That is the reality we confirmed by filing our own claims.

However, precisely because it cannot be fully protected, there is value in building something up. The areas that existing systems cannot fully protect—motivations rooted in firsthand experience, deep domain knowledge, robust operations and support, and trust from customers—are also the most difficult for imitators to copy.

Being a first-mover does not guarantee an advantage. However, being a creator who constantly asks "why are we creating this?" becomes an unshakable strength over time. Just as people are still captivated by creations from thousands of years ago, things made with time and emotion do not lose value, no matter how much technology advances. We hope this article can provide a realistic assessment and help business owners who are also "on the side of being imitated" to move forward.

Notes and References

• This article provides general information and our company's views, and does not constitute individual legal advice or other professional advice. For specific cases, conclusions may differ depending on the facts and applicable laws, so please consult with a legal professional as needed.
• The content is based on the general principles of Japanese copyright law and trademark system. The platform's reporting flow and screen display may change due to updates to Shopify and other specifications.
• Reference: "Reporting copyright infringement or responding to copyright notices" (Shopify Help Center) / Copyright Infringement Report Form (Shopify, based on DMCA)