Louis Vuitton wins upcycling trademark dispute against Kamad Reworked

Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) owns several French and EU trademarks, including the ‘Louis Vuitton’ word trademark, the LV monogram, and the Monogram canvas and Damier patterns, as illustrated below.

Since 2021, Kamad Reworked (KR) has been selling clothing and accessories under the “Kamad Paris” label, incorporating pieces cut from genuine Louis Vuitton products – including bags, suitcases, and towels – acquired notably at auction or through second-hand platforms.

Following infringement seizures in May 2024, LVM brought proceedings against KR for infringement of trademarks with a reputation, unfair competition, and free riding. In subsequent proceedings, which were joined to the first, LVM also sued KR’s three directors and relied on an additional French figurative trademark. It claimed more than €3.3 million in damages.

LVM argued that the prominent use of its signs on KR’s products took unfair advantage of the reputation of its trademarks and caused harm through dilution and damage to its image. It maintained that the products were newly manufactured items rather than the original goods placed on the market, so the principle of exhaustion of rights could not apply. In any event, it considered that the transformation of its products and the resulting harm to its reputation constituted legitimate reasons to oppose their commercialisation.

The defendants presented their creations as original works made from authentic, lawfully acquired products. They stressed that the items were sold under their own trademark, with labels, certificates of authenticity, and references such as “upcycled from” or “reworked from”, which, in their view, ruled out confusion as to their origin. They invoked exhaustion of rights and argued that the branded materials served an aesthetic and creative purpose rather than functioning as trademarks. They also relied on artistic freedom and environmental protection.

In its judgment of September 17 2026 (Case No. 24/07925), the Paris Judicial Court largely upheld LVM’s claims under Article L.713-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code and Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

The court recognised the reputation of the four principal trademarks relied upon by LVM. It found that the signs were prominently displayed on the products, in places where consumers would normally expect to see a trademark, such as the chest or sleeves of clothing. Their use was therefore not merely ornamental.

The “Kamad Paris” labels and references to upcycling did not remove the link with Louis Vuitton. On the contrary, they could lead consumers to believe that the luxury house had collaborated with KR or verified the authenticity of the branded inserts. The court also found that KR took unfair advantage of the attraction of the trademarks, while the dismantling of original products and their incorporation into new items risked harming the brands’ reputation and diluting their distinctiveness.

Importantly, the court accepted that LVM had consented to the initial marketing of the genuine products within the European Economic Area (EEA). Nevertheless, the finished items sold by KR were different products from those originally placed on the market by LVM. Consequently, Article L.713-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 did not apply, without any need to examine whether LVM had legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation.

The court referred in this respect to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Art & Allposters judgment of January 22 2015 (C-419/13), concerning the transfer of a protected work on to a new medium in a copyright dispute.

The court also rejected KR’s arguments based on artistic freedom and environmental protection. It considered that the products were ordinary clothing designs and that artistic freedom could not justify circumventing trademark rights. As regards the environmental argument, the court noted that no provision established upcycling as an exception to intellectual property rights. It also observed that the original goods could have been resold without being dismantled and found that restricting LVM’s rights on this basis would be disproportionate.

KR and its three directors, whose personal involvement was found to constitute misconduct separable from their management duties, were ordered jointly to pay €750,000 for infringement of trademarks with a reputation, €10,000 for infringement of the additional figurative trademark, and €160,000 for unfair competition and free riding; i.e., a total of €920,000. The court also ordered prohibitions, the destruction of certain products, the removal of online content, and publication measures. It refused the requested product recall.

Following the Hermès v Maison R&C judgment of April 10 2025 and Chanel v Kamad Reworked of May 21 2026, this decision confirms the approach taken by the Paris courts: upcycling does not, in itself, provide an exception to trademark protection.

The ruling is particularly interesting on exhaustion. Unlike in cases where the origin of the materials remains uncertain, the court accepted that the original Louis Vuitton goods had been marketed in the EEA with the trademark owner’s consent. It nevertheless held that exhaustion did not extend to the newly manufactured products. This reasoning, which draws on the Art & Allposters copyright judgment, may warrant further consideration if the case is appealed.

The decision also illustrates that transparency about upcycling is not necessarily sufficient to avoid infringement. Labels and references to the original brand may reinforce, rather than dispel, an association with the trademark owner. Likewise, environmental and creative arguments do not automatically outweigh trademark rights, although the position may differ where the circumstances of the transformation are materially different.

Finally, the personal liability of KR’s directors and the substantial damages awarded underline the risks faced by businesses whose products and marketing rely heavily on well-known third-party signs. In practice, seeking the trademark owner’s authorisation remains the safer approach.