The company Louis Vuitton Malletier has prevailed before the Paris Judicial Court in a judgment dated 17 September 2026 (Paris Judicial Court, 17 September 2026 (RG No. 24/07925)). Kamad sold, among other things, clothing and accessories made from fragments of presumably authentic Louis Vuitton products, relying on an “aesthetic and artistic approach” and “eco-responsible values”.
This decision echoes the one rendered against the same company in favour of Chanel a few months earlier (Paris Judicial Court, 21 May 2026, RG No. 25/00621: iptwins.com, 2026-06-08).
1) Exhaustion of rights rejected once again
In the Chanel case, it could not be established that the original products had been put on the market in the European Union with the rights holder’s consent. The court had nevertheless indicated that, even if they had been, the exhaustion exception could not have applied, since assembling different elements creates a new product.
This is precisely the situation that arose in the dispute between Kamad and Louis Vuitton. The original pieces had indeed been marketed in the European market with the trademark owner’s consent. However, the judges confirm their position: exhaustion of rights does not apply to new products that incorporate registered trademarks, even where the initial placing on the market of the fragments was authorized. Exhaustion only applies to products resold as they are, without transformation.
2) Trademark law and artistic freedom: authorization is required
Although Kamad relied on an “aesthetic and artistic approach”, the court recalls that the imprint of the author’s personality must be shown in order to claim such protection. Here, that originality was not established: the base garments were ordinary, and only the Louis Vuitton inserts stood out.
Moreover, even if such originality could have been established, originality does not dispense with the need to obtain the rights holder’s authorization. The judges thus illustrate how trademark law and artistic freedom interact: invoking artistic creation does not allow the trademark owner’s rights to be set aside where the products are commercially exploited.
3) Upcycling and environmental protection
The court points out that Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides for “a high level of environmental protection”, which must be integrated into the Union’s policies. It adds that intellectual property rights may be restricted on grounds of public interest, provided the restriction is not disproportionate to the aim pursued. The judges also stress that no national or European provision authorizes limiting a property right on grounds of upcycling.
The judges then review the factual situation. They find that the products used “were not damaged”, “had intrinsic economic value on the second-hand market”, and “could be resold as they were”. The decision also notes that “by destroying these pieces to cut them up, Kamad stimulates demand for new products instead of preserving what already exists”. This is contrary to the environmental protection objective relied on by the defendant. The judges therefore found that the purpose was solely profit-making. They nevertheless added that, even if an environmental protection purpose were present, in light of the above the infringement would still be disproportionate.
One question the judgment leaves open: the court holds that the original products, purchased second-hand, had resale value and were not unusable. In general, the fragment that is kept is most often the intact part, the one that bears the mark and gives the new piece its appeal. This raises the question of whether salvaging that intact part could justify an infringement of trademark rights.
4) Personal liability of managers as a warning
The managers are held personally liable. The court notes that they were, respectively, a stylist, a seamstress, and the supervisor of the overall organization of the activities. The judges found that the managers “therefore chose the activity of the company KR and actively steered it towards infringement, unfair competition and free-riding.”
The risk is real for the managers. In upcycling practice, it is common for managers to take part themselves in the design and manufacture of the upcycled products, which makes it easier to establish personal fault. The decision may be seen as a warning.
There is also a clear intention to give the decision wide reach. The court orders publication of an extract of the judgment in two fashion press titles chosen by Louis Vuitton Malletier, and itself issued a press release. In the Chanel case, on the contrary, publication in a press title had not been authorized. The court thus signals the importance it attaches to this decision.
About IP Twins
IP Twins assists businesses in protecting and enforcing their trademarks online. Its services include domain name monitoring, detection of intellectual property infringements, combating online counterfeiting, and resolving domain name disputes.
By combining legal expertise with technological solutions, IP Twins helps rights holders identify infringements, preserve evidence, and implement brand protection and enforcement strategies tailored to the risks of the digital environment.