Upcycling with branded goods: where is the line drawn?

The facts of the case:

In a judgement dated 17 September 2026 (Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, 3rd Chamber, 1st Division, Case No. RG 24/07925), the Paris court found Kamad Reworked and its directors guilty of trademark infringement and unfair competition, as well as the unauthorised exploitation of another’s work (‘parasitisme’), to the benefit of Louis Vuitton Malletier. The court found that Kamad had purchased second-hand Louis Vuitton products, including bags, suitcases and towels, which were authentic. The company then cut up these products and incorporated pieces of fabric or material bearing the trademark into newly designed garments and accessories. These products were then sold online, via social media, in the company’s own shop, and through resellers. Louis Vuitton argued that Kamad was thereby capitalising on the appeal of its well-known brands, giving the impression of a collaboration or a guarantee of authenticity through product design and marketing. Kamad cited the lawful acquisition of the original products, the principle of exhaustion, the creative nature of the products, and their sustainability value, amongst other things.[1]

When does upcycling become a trademark infringement?

The court did not rule that all upcycling of branded goods constitutes trademark infringement. Rather, the decision shows that lawfully acquiring a branded product does not permit any subsequent commercial use of the trademark contained within it. The decisive factor was a combination of several circumstances.
Old goods were transformed into new goods. The court did not consider the trademark elements that had been cut up and incorporated into other products to be a mere resale of goods originally placed on the market by Louis Vuitton. The court found that the new garments and accessories were not the same goods whose distribution had been authorised by the trademark owner. Therefore, the defence of exhaustion was not successful.
The trademarks remained recognisable on the products and contributed to their marketability. The trademark elements were visibly incorporated into the new products and, in the court’s view, enhanced their appeal. References to ‘upcycled’ or ‘reworked’ and labelling with the company’s own trademark did not allay trademark concerns.
The reputation of the trademarks was exploited for commercial gain. In the case of well-known trademarks, it was not sufficient to merely consider whether consumers immediately regarded the products as genuine. The court also found that there had been an unfair exploitation of the appeal and reputation of the Louis Vuitton trademarks.
The marketing strategy increased the risk of attribution and association. The court also took issue with the use of the Louis Vuitton brand in digital communications and in-store displays. This could create the impression among the public of a collaboration or verification of authenticity.

Therefore, the principle of exhaustion does not grant unsiversal authorisation to dismantle original products and incorporate trademark elements into new goods. Whether the branded product is resold as such or whether the alteration results in a new product not authorised by the trademark proprietor is particularly relevant for such further processing. While clear labelling as ‘reworked’ is important for consumer information, it does not automatically eliminate trademark infringement or the exploitation of a well-known trademark.

When does trademark infringement not occur?

No universally applicable, definitive exception can be derived from the judgement for specific upcycling models. The decision relates to the commercial manufacture and marketing of specific products and the use of visible trademark elements in the accompanying advertising. In particular, it does not conclusively rule on purely private alterations or every conceivable artistic use.

In practice, the decision suggests that the risk may be lower if a trademark is not used to indicate the origin of a product or to attract customers, and if the marketing does not suggest a connection to the trademark proprietor or exploit the proprietor’s reputation to promote sales. However, the court did not formulate this exemption: whether a particular course of action is permissible must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In the case in question, neither an environmental nor a creative purpose constituted justification for the specific commercial use.

Further marketing practices challenged

In addition to the use of the trademarks on the products themselves, the court deemed certain elements of the communication to be unfair. According to published reports of the decision, these included references to Louis Vuitton on social media and a presentation that capitalised on the luxury company’s reputation and goodwill. Such actions may give rise to claims of unfair competition or unauthorised exploitation of another’s achievements, regardless of whether the source materials were acquired authentically.

Implications and practical consequences

The court awarded Louis Vuitton a total of EUR 920,000 in damages: EUR 750,000 for infringement of well-known trademarks, EUR 10,000 for infringement of an additional French figurative mark, and EUR 160,000 for unfair competition and unauthorised exploitation of another party’s work. According to the court’s press release, an additional EUR 120,000 was awarded to cover legal and procedural costs. The court also issued injunctions and destruction orders, as well as ordering publications to inform consumers and prevent further sales of the disputed products.

This has implications for upcycling companies: before engaging in the commercial upcycling of goods protected by trademark law and bearing trademarks, it is not enough simply to document the origin of the source products. The nature and extent of the alteration, the visibility and function of the trademarks or their components, the specific product labelling and the overall marketing, including social media, hashtags, visual language and shop presentation, must also be assessed. According to this judgement, an authentic origin, sustainability and a ‘reworked’ label alone are not sufficient to rule out the risk of infringement. Although the decision was handed down in France, given the EU-wide uniform interpretation of trademark law, it can be assumed that German courts will rule similarly.

Therefore, prior to manufacturing and launching a planned upcycling collection incorporating goods from well-known manufacturers, it is advisable to have the concepts reviewed in advance to ensure they are compatible with any third-party trademark, design or copyright rights.

Note: This was the initial judgement. At the time of publication, it was not possible to ascertain whether an appeal had been lodged against the decision, or if it was final.

[1] Judgment of the Paris Judicial Court: Case No. 24/07925 | Court of Cassation; https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2026-09/CP%2018092026%203%C3%A8me%20chambre.pdf.