The decisions involved well known designer brands including Louis Vuitton. iStock/Christopher Ames
26 Oct 2026, 11:11 am
A Paris Civil Court ruling has strengthened the position of luxury brands seeking to prevent third parties from transforming authentic branded products into new products and reselling them as “upcycled” goods.
The court found that French fashion company Kamad Reworked had infringed several Louis Vuitton trademarks by using pieces taken from authentic Louis Vuitton products to manufacture and sell new clothing, accessories and jewelry.
The decision follows a line of cases developed by the same chamber of the Paris Civil Court, beginning with a judgment concerning Hermès scarves in April 2025 and followed by a Chanel jewelry case earlier this year.
Together, the three decisions establish an increasingly settled line of first-instance case law in France that upcycling does not in itself constitute an exception to intellectual property (IP) rights, while the principle of exhaustion does not necessarily extend to the transformation of authentic goods into new products and environmental protection considerations do not, in themselves, justify such practices.
Kamad Reworked’s business involved using materials taken from branded products to create new clothing and accessories. This included t-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets and other items incorporating pieces bearing Louis Vuitton word marks, monograms, floral monogram patterns and the brand’s damier pattern.
Kamad argued that the materials originated from authentic products lawfully acquired through sources including auctions and the second-hand marketplace Vinted. The court accepted that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the source products had been marketed in the European Economic Area (EEA) with Louis Vuitton’s consent.
However, this did not allow Kamad to rely on the exhaustion of Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights. The court found that the products into which the branded pieces had subsequently been incorporated were not the products as originally placed on the market by Louis Vuitton. The exhaustion provisions were therefore inapplicable, meaning manufacture, marketing and promotion of the newly created products required Louis Vuitton’s consent.
The reasoning consolidates the approach taken in previous decisions.
In the Hermès case, the court considered denim jackets incorporating pieces cut from the authentic second-hand Hermès silk scarves. It held that cutting the scarves and sewing the resulting pieces into jackets replaced the original medium of the protected works and created new reproductions.
Their distribution on the market therefore required Hermès’ authorisation despite the authenticity of the underlying scarves, and consequently amounted to trademark infringement.
In the Chanel case, the court applied a similar approach. It held that branded components incorporated into new jewelry formed part of an entirely different product from that initially placed on the market, so exhaustion was unavailable even assuming that the original components had been marketed with Chanel’s consent in the EEA.
Across the three cases, the court has also rejected attempts to avoid infringement through labels, disclaimers or the use of the upcycler’s own branding.
In the Louis Vuitton proceedings, the defendant argued that its products were marketed under its own identity and that labels, certificates and expressions such as “upcycled from” or “reworked from” informed consumers of the products’ actual origin.
The court was not persuaded. It found that the Louis Vuitton signs were prominently displayed on the new goods, often in places where consumers would ordinarily expect to find trademarks. They therefore served an origin-identifying function rather than being merely decorative materials. The presence of a “Kamad Paris” label did not eliminate the likelihood of confusion or association with Louis Vuitton.
This is consistent with the Chanel decision – another case involving Kamad – in which the court found that Kamad’s branding and statements explaining that the products were independent creations did not exclude the risk of confusion. The court considered that wording indicating that part of the product originated from the branded goods could itself suggest an association with the rights holder.
The extensive use of the enhanced protection afforded to renowned trademarks is a particularly significant feature distinguishing the Louis Vuitton ruling from earlier decisions.
The court examined whether consumers would establish a link with Louis Vuitton’s trademark and whether Kamad’s use took unfair advantage of their reputation or distinctive character, diluted them or damaged their reputation.
This allowed the court to address situations extending beyond the ordinary identity or similarity of goods. In relation to Louis Vuitton’s renowned damier trademark, for example, the registration at issue covered class 18 goods, while Kamad had used the sign on clothing and accessories. The court found that the strength and distinctiveness of the mark would lead consumers to establish a link with Louis Vuitton, including potentially perceiving a collection or commercial partnership involving the brand.
The decision also extends the reasoning developed in the earlier cases to a considerably broader range of signs. The court did not limit its analysis to complete word marks or logos. It considered various elements derived from Louis Vuitton products, including word signs, monograms, floral monogram patterns and pieces of the damier pattern.
A recurring feature of the court's reasoning was that the protected signs were prominently displayed on otherwise relatively ordinary products. In its view, the Louis Vuitton elements were therefore not being used simply as raw decorative material but contributed significantly to the products' commercial attractiveness.
As in the Hermès case, the court also considered whether the environmental rationale behind upcycling could justify interference with Louis Vuitton's rights.
The court considered the issue by reference to Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protects intellectual property, and Article 37, concerning environmental protection. It recognised environmental protection as a legitimate general-interest objective capable, in principle, of being relevant when considering restrictions on property rights.
However, it rejected the defendant's argument on the facts for two principal reasons. First, Kamad's upcycling operations formed part of a commercial, profit-making business. Second, evidence concerning the original Louis Vuitton goods showed that they retained economic value and could have been resold on the second-hand market instead of being dismantled. The court went as far as observing that destroying resaleable second-hand products could stimulate demand for new products.
Even assuming environmental protection had been the principal objective pursued, the court considered the interference with Louis Vuitton's rights disproportionate because the original goods retained intrinsic economic value and remained suitable for resale.
That analysis closely mirrors the Hermès case, where the court similarly emphasised the commercial nature of the activity and the continuing value of the scarves on the second-hand market when rejecting the environmental justification.
The Louis Vuitton decision goes beyond trademark infringement by identifying separate acts of unfair competition and parasitism.
The court identified conduct including the commercial exploitation of Louis Vuitton's stylised flowers, imitation of its “Ornaments” collection, the use of authentic Louis Vuitton products and packaging in Kamad's merchandising and communications, and use of the #louisvuitton hashtag. It found that these practices enabled Kamad to associate itself with Louis Vuitton's reputation and prestige and to benefit from Louis Vuitton's investments without bearing the corresponding costs.
In doing so, the court emphasised the need to identify an individualised economic value capable of being parasitised, such as the reputation attached to a motif, investments made in promoting a particular collection or the attractiveness associated with branded packaging.
The decision is also noteworthy for the personal liability imposed on Kamad's three directors alongside the company.
The court recalled the French law principle under which a director can be personally liable towards a third party for intentional misconduct of particular seriousness that is incompatible with the normal exercise of their corporate functions, and that active and personal participation in infringement can constitute such misconduct.
The evidence showed that the three directors had different but active roles in the business, covering textile transformation, the organisation of operations and the design of collections. The court concluded that they had actively directed Kamad towards the infringing activities and held them liable alongside the company.
The court also noted that the defendants continued their activities after Louis Vuitton raised its complaints and subsequently launched a “Justice” collection referring directly to the litigation, including a T-shirt bearing the words “Assignation devant le tribunal judiciaire” (‘Summons before the civil court’). The conduct was taken into account both when examining their knowledge and when assessing the harm caused by the infringement.
The ruling can therefore be read alongside recent French Supreme Court case law on directors' personal liability for IP infringement.
The three Paris decisions now provide businesses with a relatively coherent framework for assessing commercial upcycling involving branded goods, although it remains to be seen whether this approach will be confirmed by a higher court.
For rights holders, the decisions draw a meaningful distinction between resale of authentic second-hand goods and the use of protected elements from those goods to manufacture new commercial products. The Louis Vuitton ruling is especially important because lawful EEA circulation of the original goods did not prevent infringement once those goods had been dismantled and their protected elements commercially exploited on new products, particularly where the original goods retained value on the second-hand market.
For businesses operating in the upcycling and circular-economy sectors, acquiring an authentic branded product does not necessarily provide the IP rights needed to transform it and exploit protected elements on a new product. Nor can businesses assume that using their own branding, adding disclaimers or describing a product as “upcycled” will remove the infringement risk.
Written by
OUT-LAW ANALYSIS
20 Oct 2026
