Upcycling does not shield a business from trademark infringement claims in the EU: since 2025, the Paris Judicial Court has held three times that turning genuine branded items into new products for sale infringes the brand owner’s marks, and that the exhaustion rule does not apply once the product has been transformed. The reasoning rests on EU-wide rules and matters to fashion, jewellery and resale brands in Europe and Latin America that reuse buttons, scarves, canvas or hardware bearing someone else’s mark.
Update (October 2026): on 17 September 2026 the Paris Judicial Court ruled against a company selling clothing made from genuine Louis Vuitton products bearing the LV monogram and Damier pattern. It rejected exhaustion, the environmental argument and freedom of expression, and found infringement of reputed marks. Kluwer Trademark Blog, 29 September 2026.
Key takeaways
- Exhaustion only lets you resell the same goods the brand owner put on the EEA market. A new necklace or jacket built from branded parts is a different product.
- Even where the parts are genuine, changing their condition is a “legitimate reason” for the owner to object under Article 15(2) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation.
- In Chanel v Kamad Reworked (21 May 2026), disclaimers of non-affiliation did not help and certificates of authenticity were treated as misleading.
- Artistic freedom and sustainability arguments failed where the court saw a mainly commercial activity.
- Upcycling can also infringe copyright in prints and designs, as the 2025 Hermès scarf case shows.
What is trademark exhaustion and why does upcycling test it?
Exhaustion is the rule that stops a brand owner from controlling the resale of its own genuine goods. Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (the EUTMR) says an EU trade mark does not entitle the owner to prohibit its use for goods put on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA) under that mark by the owner or with its consent. Article 15(2) adds the exception: the rule does not apply where there are legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation, “especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired”. Spain’s Trade Marks Act uses the same structure in Article 36 of Law 17/2001.
That is why second-hand trading is lawful: a genuine Chanel jacket resold as it is remains the product Chanel released. Upcycling breaks that link. The buttons are cut off, the scarf is sewn onto denim, the canvas becomes a new bag.
What did the Paris courts decide on upcycling and trademarks?
| Case | What the defendant sold | Defences raised | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hermès v Maison R&C and others, Paris Judicial Court, 10 April 2025 | Levi’s denim jackets with patches cut from Hermès silk scarves, some showing the HERMÈS sign | Exhaustion, artistic freedom, environmental protection, lack of originality of the designs | Copyright and trademark infringement found |
| Chanel v Kamad Reworked, Paris Judicial Court, 21 May 2026 (RG 25/00621) | Necklaces, bracelets, earrings and belt chains made with buttons and charms bearing the CC monogram | Exhaustion (authentic second-hand components) | Infringement found; EUR 75,000 provisional damages, destruction of stock and injunction |
| Hermès v Le Bidon français, Paris Judicial Court, June 2026 | Dented cans, trays and fire extinguishers bearing Hermès marks, sold as art objects online | Artistic expression and parody, no confusion | Trademark infringement and unfair competition found |
Chanel v Kamad Reworked: the clearest statement
According to IP Twins (8 June 2026) and The Fashion Law (2 June 2026), the court rejected exhaustion on two levels. First, Kamad did not prove that the charms came from genuine Chanel goods put on the EEA market by Chanel or with its consent; the burden was on the defendant. Second, even if they had been genuine, incorporating them into a completely different product took the case outside exhaustion altogether. It also found that the CC monogram led consumers to attribute the jewellery to Chanel, that a disclaimer of non-affiliation could aggravate the confusion rather than dispel it, and that certificates of authenticity were a misleading commercial practice. Chanel had claimed EUR 500,000; the court awarded EUR 75,000 on a provisional basis and ordered disclosure of sales and stock to set final damages.
The Hermès cases: scarves, cans and copyright
In the 2025 scarf case, reported by IPKat (July 2025), Hermès relied on both its word mark and copyright in the scarf designs. The court held the designs original and found that the upcycling was not a creative or artistic exercise, and that the commercial motive undermined the environmental argument. In June 2026, in a case covered by IPKat (23 July 2026), the same court found infringement by an online gallery selling repurposed objects bearing Hermès marks. Identical signs on identical goods meant no confusion analysis was needed, and the use of “Hermès” in product titles and the #hermes hashtag pointed to a commercial link rather than artistic commentary.
Do artistic freedom or sustainability arguments protect upcycled products?
Not on their own. Recital 21 of the EUTMR says use of a trade mark for artistic expression should be considered fair “as long as it is at the same time in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”, and that the Regulation must respect freedom of expression. The Paris decisions show how narrow that space is in practice: where the mark is used to sell, in product names, hashtags or as the dominant visual element, the court treats the activity as commercial use of a sign, not as art.
Sustainability fared no better. In the scarf case the court accepted the importance of environmental goals but found the defendants’ primary motive commercial. Writing for the Kluwer Trademark Blog (16 July 2026), Michal Bohaczewski argues the decisions are consistent with exhaustion case law, including Copad v Dior (C-59/08) on damage to the reputation of luxury goods as a legitimate reason to object.
Is the rule the same in Spain and Latin America?
These are first-instance decisions and may be appealed, but the rules they apply are harmonised: Article 15 EUTMR covers EU trade marks in every Member State, and national laws such as the Spanish Act mirror it. A Spanish upcycling brand selling online into France is exposed to the same reasoning.
In the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), Article 158 of Decision 486 adopts international exhaustion: once a product is put on the market anywhere by the owner or with its consent, resale cannot be blocked, “in particular” when the goods and their direct packaging have not been modified, altered or deteriorated. Each Latin American country has its own courts and case law, so the outcome for a given product should be checked locally before launch.
What this means for your business
If you run or invest in an upcycling, customisation or resale label:
- Map every third-party mark visible on your products: logos, monograms, patterns, engraved hardware and labels.
- Keep proof of origin for every branded component: invoices, authenticity checks and where the item was first sold. In Chanel v Kamad, the lack of that proof decided the exhaustion point on its own.
- Do not use the brand name in product titles, tags or hashtags, and do not rely on disclaimers as a fix.
- Check copyright in prints and designs, not only trademarks.
- Consider licensing or collaboration agreements with the brand owner where the business model depends on its marks.
If you are a brand owner, the same decisions support monitoring resale and upcycling channels and acting early, with evidence of how the mark is presented. Our trademark team for brands in Europe and Latin America can review the marks involved and the registrations you would rely on in each market.
Where upcycling projects get trademark infringement wrong
- Assuming genuine parts make a genuine product. Exhaustion protects resale of the original item, not new creations built from it.
- Selling across borders without checking: a shop in Spain or Mexico that targets French buyers can be sued in France.
- Treating a disclaimer as a licence. In the Chanel case it was seen as adding to confusion.
- Ignoring copyright and unfair competition, which brand owners plead alongside trademarks.
- Waiting for a cease-and-desist letter. Stock destruction and disclosure orders make late corrections expensive; our IP disputes and enforcement team can assess exposure before launch.
Frequently asked questions
Is upcycling branded goods legal in the EU?
Reselling genuine goods in their original condition is generally lawful under the exhaustion rule in Article 15 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation. Transforming them into new products that still display the brand is different: the Paris Judicial Court has held in the Hermès and Chanel cases that this falls outside exhaustion and can infringe the trademark, and sometimes copyright.
Does a disclaimer saying “not affiliated with the brand” avoid infringement?
Not reliably. In Chanel v Kamad Reworked, decided on 21 May 2026, the court considered that a disclaimer of non-affiliation could aggravate confusion rather than remove it, because the CC monogram remained the dominant element. A disclaimer does not replace the brand owner’s consent or a licence.
Can I rely on artistic freedom for one-off upcycled pieces?
Recital 21 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation accepts artistic use as fair only if it also complies with honest commercial practices. The Paris decisions rejected the argument where the mark was used to sell, in product titles, hashtags or as the main visual feature. Whether a specific piece qualifies requires a case-by-case assessment.
Can IP Global Guard review an upcycling or resale collection before launch?
Yes. We review which third-party marks and designs appear on the products, the evidence of origin and the markets you sell into, and advise on changes, licensing options or the risk of a claim. Across Spain, the rest of the EU and Latin America, we work from a single point of contact and coordinate local correspondents where needed.
How IP Global Guard can help with upcycling and brand protection
Whether you build products from branded materials or own the brand being reused, the Paris rulings make the answer turn on proof of origin, how the mark is shown and where you sell. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, handles trademarks, copyright in designs and creative works and IP disputes with one strategy across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa.
Send us photos of the pieces, the brands involved and the countries where you sell or plan to sell. We will tell you where the infringement risk sits and what would reduce it. Ask our team for a review of your collection.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on the date of publication.
Sources
- EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the EU trade mark, recital 21 and Article 15 (14 June 2017)
- BOE, Spanish Trade Marks Act 17/2001, Article 36 (consolidated text)
- Andean Community, Decision 486, Article 158 (14 September 2000)
- IP Twins, Upcycling and trade mark law: the Chanel v Kamad Reworked decision (8 June 2026)
- The Fashion Law, Chanel secures win in case testing the limits of luxury upcycling (2 June 2026)
- Kluwer Trademark Blog, Upcycling vs trade mark exhaustion: why the Paris court is right (16 July 2026)
- IPKat, Is unauthorised fashion upcycling lawful? (July 2025)
- IPKat, Hermès on a dented can: French court rejects artistic expression defence (23 July 2026)
- Kluwer Trademark Blog, The Paris court confirms once again that upcycling does not preclude trade mark infringement (29 September 2026, update only)
