Upcycling defence falls short in Chanel trademark dispute

A judgment issued by the Paris Judicial Court on May 21 2026 provides important guidance on the limits of luxury upcycling under French trademark law.

The dispute was between Chanel and Kamad Reworked (KR), a French company specialising in upcycled fashion items. KR marketed necklaces, bracelets, earrings, belt chains, and other jewellery incorporating elements presented as originating from authentic Chanel products, including buttons and belt buckles bearing Chanel’s well-known trademarks.

After several purchases and online investigations carried out in 2023 and 2024, Chanel concluded that KR was commercialising products displaying the iconic interlocking ‘CC’ monogram, as well as the signs ‘Chanel’ and ‘Coco’, without authorisation. Chanel sent cease-and-desist letters in 2023, but the products remained available for sale, leading to proceedings before the Paris Judicial Court.

In addition to trademark infringement claims, Chanel alleged that KR engaged in misleading commercial practices by providing customers with certificates of authenticity accompanying the products.

Chanel argued that KR was using several of its French trademark registrations in the course of trade for jewellery products identical to those covered by its registrations. According to Chanel, the disputed signs appeared directly on the jewellery charms and therefore functioned as indicators of commercial origin.

The luxury house also rejected any reliance on the exhaustion of rights doctrine. Even assuming that some of the components originated from genuine Chanel products, Chanel argued that those products had been materially altered and transformed through the upcycling process. As it claimed, such modifications constituted legitimate grounds allowing the trademark owner to oppose further commercialisation.

Although KR did not appear in the proceedings, its position was reflected in earlier correspondence cited by the court. KR maintained that it was using authentic second-hand Chanel elements and creating original upcycled works. It also informed customers that it was an independent upcycling brand and not affiliated with Chanel.

The case therefore raised a broader question increasingly faced by luxury brands: can an upcycler freely commercialise transformed products incorporating genuine trademarked components without the trademark owner’s consent?

The court answered that question in the negative.

It first found that KR was clearly using Chanel’s signs in the course of trade. The interlocking CC monogram, the word Chanel, and the name Coco appeared directly on the jewellery sold through KR’s website and retail activities. Because those signs were affixed to the products themselves, consumers would perceive them as indicators of commercial origin, regardless of the explanations provided elsewhere on the website.

The court then rejected any argument based on exhaustion of rights. Under French and EU trademark law, exhaustion does not prevent a trademark owner from opposing further commercialisation where legitimate reasons exist, notably where the condition of the products has been modified or altered after they were first placed on the market. The upcycling process relied upon by KR necessarily involved such modifications.

When assessing the signs, the court found a very high degree of similarity between the disputed monograms and Chanel’s registered trademarks. The interlocking CC remained the dominant element visible to consumers, while any differences in colour or stylisation were considered insignificant. Given the exceptional distinctiveness and reputation of Chanel’s monogram in the fashion and accessories sector, the court concluded that consumers would immediately associate the products with Chanel.

Importantly, the court held that neither the presence of the Kamad Reworked name on the reverse side of the charms nor website disclaimers stating that the products were independent creations were sufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, some of those statements reinforced the impression that part of the products originated from Chanel.

The court therefore found infringement of several Chanel word and figurative trademarks.

The court also examined the certificates of authenticity delivered with the products.

Those certificates stated that the items originated from authentic pieces and constituted authentic Kamad creations, while also indicating that KR was not affiliated with the brands from which the recycled components originated.

According to the court, the repeated references to authenticity and originality were liable to convince consumers that the commercialisation of the products was lawful. This was particularly problematic because KR had never obtained Chanel’s authorisation and had continued its activities after receiving cease-and-desist letters. The certificates therefore created the misleading impression that the sale of the products was legally permitted when it was not.

The court consequently characterised the practice as misleading under French consumer law.

The practical implications of the case are as follows:

• The decision confirms that the use of genuine luxury components does not automatically shield upcycled products from trademark infringement claims. Once original products are modified and reintroduced on to the market, trademark owners may still rely on legitimate reasons to oppose their commercialisation.

• The judgment also highlights the limits of disclaimers in the luxury upcycling sector. Statements indicating that an upcycler is independent from the brand owner will not necessarily prevent a finding of infringement where the trademark remains the dominant element perceived by consumers.

• More broadly, the ruling reinforces the strong protection afforded to famous luxury trademarks. The court attached particular importance to the reputation and distinctive character of Chanel’s monogram when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

• Far from creating a new rule, the judgment confirms an established line of French case law. In its April 9 2025 Hermès decision (Cass. com., No. 23-22.242), concerning furniture and decorative items made from authentic Hermès scarves, the French Supreme Court held that trademark exhaustion does not prevent a brand owner from opposing the commercialisation of products that have been materially transformed after their initial placement on the market. The Chanel ruling applies the same principle to the growing luxury upcycling sector, confirming that the transformation of genuine branded products may constitute a legitimate reason allowing the trademark owner to object to their resale.

• Finally, the decision serves as a reminder that upcycling businesses must consider not only intellectual property rules but also consumer protection law. Marketing materials designed to reassure customers about the authenticity or legality of products may themselves create additional legal exposure if they suggest that the products are lawfully marketed without the trademark owner’s consent.