A Louis Vuitton store in a department store. Photo = Hankyung DB Mr. Park (29), an office worker living in Jongno-gu, Seoul, bought a mini bag made of Louis Vuitton’s PVC leather for 500,000 won through social networking service (SNS) last month. It was not a bag actually sold by Louis Vuitton, but a so-called ‘upcycling product’ made with leather and metal parts removed and cut from used bags.
Last year, Mr. Park purchased a backpack made of Prada fabric for 300,000 won. He said, “If you want to buy a product like this at an official store, you have to pay 2 to 3 million won. Since you make it yourself, you can add your own design and feel like you bought a luxury product at a low price.”
It is part of the MZ generation (Millennials + Generation Z) culture to make old luxury goods like new products through reformation or upcycling like Mr. Park’s. A market research company analyzed customers who entrusted luxury clothes or bags to be remodeled and found that 40% were from the MZ generation.
However, in the future, such actions may constitute ‘trademark infringement’. This comes after a court ruled that ‘reformed products’, which are made by repairing luxury products and remaking them, infringed on luxury trademark rights.
Court rules Louis Vuitton bag reformation is a trademark infringement
Photo = Getty Image Bank According to the industry on the 28th, the 31st Division of the Patent Court’s Special Civil Appellate Division dismissed Mr. Lee’s appeal in the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the luxury goods company ‘Louis Vuitton Maletier’ against the reformer Mr. Lee. Previously, Mr. Lee appealed against the first trial ruling ordering him to compensate for damages after admitting that he had infringed on the Louis Vuitton trademark.
Similar to the first trial, the appellate court ruled, “Mr. Lee must not manufacture reformed products using fabric from bags bearing the Louis Vuitton trademark and must pay Louis Vuitton 15 million won in damages.”
Mr. Lee argued throughout the trial that the reformed product did not constitute a new product, but the court said, “To apply a violation of trademark law, we must examine whether the reformed product constitutes a product,” and added, “Reformed products, like original products, are expensive in the used goods market. “It is considered a commodity because it is traded and has value as an independent product.”
At the same time, he said, “The plaintiff’s trademark is also displayed on the reformed product, and since the reformed product is not marked as ‘reformed, remanufactured’, etc., general consumers may misunderstand that the product in question is made by Louis Vuitton.” He added, “With the plaintiff’s permission, “It is acknowledged that trademark rights were violated by using the trademark without permission,” he explained.
Mr. Lee produced bags and wallets of different sizes, shapes, and purposes using fabric from Louis Vuitton bags provided by customers between 2017 and 2021. Each reformed product received a production cost of 100,000 to 700,000 won.
Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit in February 2022, claiming that Lee violated its trademark rights by impeding the source indication and quality assurance functions of its trademark. The Civil Settlement Division 63 of the Seoul Central District Court, which was in charge of the first trial, ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton in November last year, saying, “Reformed products are also considered products. Mr. Lee should pay Louis Vuitton 15 million won in damages.” Mr. Lee, who was dissatisfied with this, appealed, but the result did not change.
“I made this with my own money…don’t I have a right?”
In this way, if a consumer radically reformates the design of a Chanel or Louis Vuitton bag or wallet that he or she has legally purchased, it is illegal and only simple repairs (AS) are possible. This means that it is a property that was purchased for millions to tens of millions of won, so it cannot be repaired carelessly.
Citizens waiting to enter the luxury section of a department store in downtown Seoul. /News 1 The reform controversy is one of the representative disputes in the luxury goods industry. In the United States, there have already been several disputes over the upcycling of luxury brands. In 2022, Chanel sued a company that reused its buttons to make jewelry such as earrings and necklaces. Accordingly, the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of Chanel and permanently banned reformers from producing upcycled Chanel button products. This is an example of a type of service that is commonly produced and sold in Korea.
Louis Vuitton also sued a design company that produced clothing, handbags, and accessories by modifying the materials of its products and received $603,000 (about 841 million won).
Why are luxury goods companies engaging in lawsuits over reformulated products? A fashion industry official said, “At one time, as reformations by Louis Vuitton, Prada, etc. gained sensational popularity, sales of mini bag products similar to related products were affected to the point where sales slowed down.” He added, “Most reformed luxury brands copied designs similar to genuine products. Although it is not as expensive as the genuine product, it still makes a considerable profit by selling it for hundreds of thousands of won. “If this trend spreads, ordinary consumers will not be willing to pay full price for authentic designs, so luxury goods companies are the most wary,” he said.
Of course, there is considerable criticism from consumers. The argument is that the trademark holder cannot exercise the trademark rights because the price (price) has already been received at the time of the product transaction. It is the logic of ‘consumer rights’ to recycle luxury goods that you paid a lot of money for by transforming them into new designs because they are old or boring.
In fact, upon hearing this news, reactions among consumers ranged from “Don’t I have the right to the bag I paid a lot of money for?” to “Remodeling your home must be illegal,” and “If you wear jeans and the hem rips and you make shorts, will you get sued?” Even sarcasm poured out.
Reporter Ahn Hye-won of Hankyung.com [email protected]
