▲ A Louis Vuitton store (Yonhap)

(LEAD) Supreme Court-luxury goods

(LEAD) Top court rules repurposing luxury goods for personal use does not violate trademark law

(ATTN: RECASTS lead; ADDS details throughout, byline)

By Chae Yun-hwan

SEOUL, Feb. 26 (Yonhap) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that repurposing and altering luxury goods for personal use do not amount to trademark infringement in the nation's first ruling on such a case involving businesses specializing in refurbishing luxury items.

In a widely watched case brought by luxury brand Louis Vuitton against a refurbishing business, the top court overturned an earlier verdict that had sided with the luxury brand, sending the case back to a lower court for review.

In 2022, Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit against an owner of the refurbishing business, surnamed Lee, alleging that the business violated the trademark law by altering its products and impairing their quality assurance.

The case focused on whether the business' delivery of their clients' altered luxury goods constituted trademark infringement.

From 2017 to 2021, the business produced bags and wallets using materials from Louis Vuitton bags it received from customers. The business received up to 700,000 won (US$490) per piece for its service.

A lower court had ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton in 2023, restricting Lee from producing such goods and ordering him to pay 15 million won in damages to the brand. The ruling was upheld in an appeals trial.

The Supreme Court, however, determined that such services, if intended for the item owner's personal use, would not fall under "use of trademarks" under the trademark law.

The court determined that Lee altering a luxury good at his customer's request and returning it could not be seen as trademark infringement.

It, however, ruled that repurposing and altering such goods for manufacturing and distribution purposes, such as refurbishing businesses distributing them in the marketplace as their own products, could amount to trademark infringement.

"This case and its result are being watched by many countries around the world, including the United States, Europe and Japan," the court said, noting its "considerable" social impact.

(END)

[ⓒ K-VIBE. 무단전재-재배포 금지]