Luxury Trademarks vs. Consumers’ Right to Repair and Refashion  – A public hearing scheduled at the Supreme Court

Louis Vuitton has filed trademark infringement lawsuits against small, independent repair businesses that, at the request of consumers, refashion worn Louis Vuitton bags into smaller bags or wallets. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Korea. A public hearing at the Supreme Court is scheduled for Friday, December 26, 2025, at 2:00 PM.

Beginning on April 25, Open Net launched a signature campaign advocating for “consumers’ right to refashion products for long-term use.” On May 19 (first submission) and July 22 (second submission), Open Net submitted a total of 1,010 petition signatures to the Supreme Court. Consumers’ efforts to upcycle or refashion products they have purchased, in order to use them for a longer period of time, constitute a legitimate consumer right and should be permitted in the interest of environmental protection. However, recent court decisions—unprecedented anywhere in the world—have held repair businesses that provide refashioning services to consumers liable for trademark infringement. As a result, these rulings infringe upon consumers’ right to enjoy environmentally sustainable consumption practices. At the same time, they allow foreign “luxury brands” to compel consumers to purchase new products, despite selling goods at prices tens of times higher than production costs and providing poor after-sales service, while threatening the livelihoods of thousands of small repair professionals nationwide who rely solely on their craftsmanship to make a living.

The defendant in this case is a professional who repaired and modified products at the request of consumers who had purchased genuine Louis Vuitton items. The defendant did not attach Louis Vuitton trademarks to counterfeit goods, nor did they sell counterfeit products. They merely altered or repaired authentic Louis Vuitton items brought in by consumers, in accordance with the consumers’ requests. The production cost of Louis Vuitton products is reportedly less than 2% of their retail price, yet the company’s own repair services are extremely expensive. Moreover, Louis Vuitton often refuses to provide repairs once a short after-sales service period has expired or if the product was purchased overseas. Under these circumstances, consumers have little choice but to rely on independent repair businesses like the defendant. In addition, when products are too worn to retain their original shape, refashioning them by cutting away damaged parts and transforming them into new forms is no different from turning old clothes into blankets or children’s garments for continued use. Courts should not issue rulings that prevent consumers from freely using goods they purchased with their own money or that maintain a system allowing luxury corporations to continue extracting excessive profits. Nowhere in the world are there judicial decisions that prohibit refashioning repairs. Foreign cases that have restricted refashioning were intended to prevent resellers from unfairly profiting by using original brand logos in the resale of modified second-hand goods—not to punish small repair businesses like the defendant in this case, who simply provide repair services for consumers.

Open Net has long fought to ensure that the internet remains a space of sharing and openness, where people around the world can equally access knowledge, ideas, and culture. To this end, Open Net has campaigned against abusive copyright settlement practices that go beyond incentivizing creators and instead excessively infringe upon the public’s right to enjoy culture. Open Net has also resisted the Korea Communications Standards Commission’s blocking of websites that provide information on safe abortion methods for women, viewing such actions as excessive violations of the right to access knowledge.
On August 21, 2024, Open Net submitted a joint amicus brief to the court from U.S. law professors specializing in intellectual property law. In addition, Open Net characterized the lower court’s ruling banning refashioning as an abuse of trademark rights that infringes upon consumers’ right to enjoy environmentally sustainable culture, and organized a signature campaign petitioning the Supreme Court for a just outcome.

Korean Version Text