On February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned a lower court decision and held that, in principle, a repair specialist does not commit trademark infringement by refashioning a luxury handbag at the request of its lawful owner (Case No. 2024Da311181). Open Net Korea warmly welcomes this historic ruling.
The case arose after Louis Vuitton Malletier sued an independent repair professional who had repaired and refashioned authentic Louis Vuitton bags at consumers’ requests. The lower court had found trademark infringement. The Supreme Court reversed, establishing an important legal principle for the first time.
The Court held that when a repairer refashions a product at the request of its owner for personal use and returns it to that owner, the presence of the original trademark on the product does not, in principle, constitute “use of a trademark” under trademark law.
However, the Court clarified that infringement may arise in exceptional circumstances—such as when the repairer controls and leads the entire refashioning process and produces and sells the refashioned items as their own products for distribution in the marketplace.
In essence, the Court reaffirmed that trademark law exists to prevent consumer confusion about commercial origin—not to control how lawful owners use, modify, or extend the life of their own property. Where a refashioned product does not re-enter the market as a new commercial good, there is no trademark “use” in the legal sense.
This ruling goes far beyond a single dispute. It judicially affirms consumers’ right to repair, refashion, and extend the life of products they lawfully purchased—a principle closely aligned with global movements toward sustainability and upcycling. Had the lower court’s reasoning prevailed, consumers could effectively have been pushed toward purchasing new products rather than repairing old ones. The Supreme Court decisively rejected such an expansive interpretation of trademark rights.
Open Net has long worked to ensure that intellectual property rights do not exceed their legitimate purpose and infringe upon cultural participation, freedom of expression, and individual autonomy. In this case, Open Net organized a public signature campaign supporting consumers’ “right to refashion and use products longer,” submitting 1,010 citizens’ signatures to the Court. Open Net also filed a joint expert opinion from overseas intellectual property law scholars to assist the Court’s consideration of the broader legal and policy implications.
Open Net will continue to monitor and respond to any attempts to use intellectual property law as a tool to restrict citizens’ rights beyond its intended scope.
0 Comments