In February 2026, Korea’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the limits of trademark rights in luxury bag “refashioning,” siding with a Seoul repair shop against Louis Vuitton and clarifying when customer‑requested alterations are legitimate use versus infringement, with major implications for exhaustion and upcycling.

A long‑time Gangnam repair artisan had, between 2017 and 2021, disassembled customers’ genuine Louis Vuitton bags often worn or out of style and refashioned them into smaller bags and wallets using the original monogrammed materials. Louis Vuitton sued in 2022, claiming the refurbished items still displayed its mark, diluted its source‑ and quality‑signaling functions, and created confusion, and sought damages.

The trial court and Patent Court agreed with Louis Vuitton, holding that the refashioned pieces were independent “goods” with resale value, capable of misleading consumers, and ordered the repairer to pay 15 million won; on further appeal, the Supreme Court’s Second Division reversed and remanded, in its first decision squarely addressing trademark infringement in refurbishment/upcycling.

The central question was whether refashioning genuine LV bags, at owners’ request and for their personal use, amounted to “use of a trademark” in the course of trade under Korean law a question that inevitably engaged the exhaustion (first‑sale) doctrine. Once a trademarked item is lawfully placed on the market, the owner’s control over subsequent use is usually exhausted, and the Court effectively held that transforming a large handbag into a mini‑bag or wallet for the same owner, without putting the refashioned item into commercial circulation, stays within permissible post‑sale use rather than becoming infringing commercial exploitation

The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

1. No “Use of a Trademark” in Personal-Use Refashioning

The Supreme Court held that refashioning a branded product at the request of the owner, for the owner’s personal use, and returning the refashioned item to that same owner does not constitute “use of the trademark” within the meaning of the Korean Trademark Act, provided the item is not distributed commercially.

The Court emphasised that:

Commercial transaction nexus: Trademark “use” presupposes that the sign is used in relation to goods or services in commercial transactions.

Personal use vs market circulation: Where refashioned products are neither mass-produced nor offered for sale and have no independent circulation in the market, they do not qualify as “goods” in the sense required to trigger trademark use.

In the Court’s words (as reported), “as long as the refashioned product is not offered in commercial transactions and is used solely for personal purposes, displaying the trademark on such a product does not constitute use of the trademark.”

2. Criteria for “Special Circumstances” Amounting to Infringement

Recognizing that refurbishment can, in some settings, function as a separate commercial product line, the Court articulated a nuanced test for when such activities cross into infringement. It held that infringement may arise in “special circumstances,” notably when the refashioning operator effectively drives the process and produces and sells refashioned goods as independent products for market distribution.

  • To determine whether such circumstances exist, courts should consider:
  • Who initiates the refashioning request and what it entails (customer-driven vs seller-driven).
  • Who makes the final decisions on the product’s purpose, form, and quantity.
  • The source of materials used in the refashioned item and the proportion each accounts for.
  • Ownership of the items before and after refashioning.

These factors are clearly aimed at distinguishing:

  • Owner-centric, one-off alterations, grounded in the owner’s right to modify their own property; from
  • Operator-centric, product-creation businesses, where the operator effectively uses the trademark to market new goods into the stream of commerce.

3. Burden of Proof on the Trademark Owner

Importantly, the Court placed the burden of proving such “special circumstances” on the trademark holder. This allocation of burden makes it procedurally harder for trademark owners to prevail in disputes involving bespoke refashioning or repair services, unless they can show that the operator’s business model truly involves independent commercial exploitation of the trademark.

Broader Significance

The Court acknowledged the case’s broader legal and social implications and noted the heightened interest in upcycling and sustainability practices in major jurisdictions such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. A public hearing and expert testimony preceded the decision, underscoring its systemic importance for the fashion, luxury, and circular economy sectors.

Application of the Right of First Sale / Exhaustion

Although the decision is framed in terms of “use of a trademark,” its logic meshes with a strong view of post-sale autonomy under the exhaustion doctrine:

The owner of a genuine Louis Vuitton bag is free to alter the bag’s physical condition, including cutting it, re-stitching it, or converting it into a different product, so long as this is done for personal use and not to place a new, independent product in the marketplace.

A repair/upcycling service provider can assist that owner and charge a fee for labour and skill, provided the work is bespoke, non-mass-produced, and the resulting item is returned to the same owner without separate market circulation.

This view effectively recognises that exhaustion covers not only resale but also a substantial degree of transformation of genuine goods, as long as the transformation remains embedded in the original owner’s sphere of use and does not morph into a separate branded product line.

Hypothetical Application under Indian Law

Indian Statutory Framework

Under Indian law, the key provisions would be found in the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

Section 29 defines infringement, including use of a registered mark in the course of trade in relation to goods or services in a manner likely to cause confusion.

Section 30 provides for limits on the effect of registered trademarks, including exhaustion where the proprietor’s rights are exhausted in relation to goods put on the market under the registered trademark by the proprietor or with their consent, subject to “legitimate reasons” to oppose further dealings, especially changes or impairments in the condition of the goods.

Indian Courts have recognised forms of international exhaustion but have also allowed proprietors to intervene where there are material differences or legitimate reasons linked to quality, reputation, or consumer protection.

How an Indian Court Might Approach Similar Facts

If the same fact pattern customer-owned, genuine luxury bags refashioned into smaller bags/wallets for personal use, with no onward sale by the repairer arose in India, the analysis might look like this:

Use “in the course of trade”: The repair shop is undoubtedly engaged in commerce, but a strong argument exists that it is not using the trademark as a badge of origin for its own goods; instead, it is providing a service to alter goods already bearing the brand. The artisan’s use of the mark is incidental to the owner’s continued use of genuine goods.

Exhaustion and post-sale modification: The owner’s right to modify their property, once lawfully acquired, is robust. A court could view bespoke refashioning as a dimension of the owner’s right under exhaustion, particularly where:

  • The goods remain with the same owner, and
  • The repairer does not market or advertise the refashioned goods as its own line of branded products.

Legitimate reasons to object: Louis Vuitton could argue that drastic alteration impairs quality and reputation, creating “legitimate reasons” to oppose further dealing under Section 30. However, the counter would be that:

There is no further “dealing” with third parties by the repairer (the goods are simply returned to the same owner).

Any resale in the secondary market would be initiated by the owner, and Indian law generally allows resale of genuine goods, subject to clear disclosure and absence of misrepresentation.

On balance, in a purely personal-use scenario, there is a reasonable likelihood that an Indian court especially a higher court sensitive to exhaustion and consumer autonomy could align with the Korean Supreme Court’s approach and hold that there is no actionable infringement by the repairer in such a narrow fact pattern. The decision might emphasise that the repairer does not “use” the mark in a trademark sense, but merely works upon goods already bearing the mark at the owner’s behest.

Where Indian Law Might Diverge

However, Indian courts may be more receptive to claims where:

The repairer advertises heavily using the brand name or logo (e.g., “Louis Vuitton Upcycled Collection by X”) in a manner suggesting an affiliation or endorsement.

The refashioned products are sold by the repairer to new customers as independent goods, particularly if the branding remains prominent and no adequate disclaimers are given.

The alterations are so drastic that they materially degrade quality, enabling arguments that reputation and goodwill are harmed, furnishing “legitimate reasons” under Section 30 to restrain the dealings.

In such circumstances, Indian courts could tilt more towards protection of brand integrity, potentially granting injunctive relief even if the goods are originally genuine, especially in the luxury context.

R K Dewan & Co. is a trusted name in intellectual property, delivering end-to-end solutions across India and major global jurisdictions. We provide expert support in trademark registration for companies, helping businesses build and protect strong brand identities in competitive markets. With deep expertise in brand protection legal services, we safeguard valuable assets against infringement and misuse.

We are also known for our focused approach to patent filing for startups, enabling innovators to secure their ideas and grow with confidence. Our experience in corporate patent strategy services ensures that businesses develop strong, future-ready IP portfolios aligned with their goals.

From prosecution to enforcement and litigation across all levels of the Indian judiciary, we remain committed to protecting innovation and supporting client growth both in India and worldwide.