The Korean Supreme Court recently rendered a decision that a professional bag reformer's act of transforming luxury bags into differently shaped bags and wallets at the request of its customers — for their own personal use — does not constitute "use of trademark" under the Korean Trademark Act and therefore does not give rise to trademark infringement (Supreme Court Case No. 2024Da311181, decided on February 26, 2026).

▶Background of the Case

Louis Vuitton Malletier ("Louis Vuitton"), the holder of Korean trademark registrations for its well-known LV monogram designs covering bags, wallets and related goods (Registration Nos. 0330235 and 0109060), filed an infringement action against the defendant, who operated a bag repair and alteration business in Seoul.

From approximately 2017 to 2021, the defendant received Louis Vuitton bags from their owners, disassembled them entirely, and recut the original fabric and hardware as raw materials to produce — through physical and chemical treatment, stitching, and parts attachment — bags and wallets that differed substantially in number, size, volume, shape, form, and function from the original products. The transformed products were then returned to the respective owners. 

Louis Vuitton asserted, as its main claim, that the defendant's reform acts and the delivery of the reformed products to the owners constituted "use of trademark" under the Korean Trademark Act ("KTA"), thereby infringing Louis Vuitton's registered marks. In the alternative, Louis Vuitton argued that the production and sale of reformed products amounted to an act of unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, as such conduct damaged the distinctiveness and reputation of Louis Vuitton's widely recognized marks.

▶The IP High Court Decision

The IP High Court ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton. 

The court first found that the reformed products constituted "goods" under the KTA, as they possessed independent exchange value and could serve as the object of independent commercial transactions. Secondly, the court found that the defendant had completely disassembled the original bags, recycled the components as raw materials, and through a series of manufacturing processes, produced new products so substantially different from the originals as to constitute production of "new goods." Under the circumstances, the court determined that, when a reform act amounts to manufacture of new products, the trademark displayed on the reformed product is perceived as indicating the producer or seller of those goods; accordingly, the defendant's act of displaying Louis Vuitton's registered trademarks on the reformed products — as if Louis Vuitton were the source — and its act of delivering those products to the owners constituted "use of trademark" within the meaning of the KTA. The IP High Court granted the requested injunction and awarded partial damages.

▶The Supreme Court Decision

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the IP High Court decision and remanded the case for further review.

The Supreme Court stated that "use of trademark" under the KTA is inherently tied to commercial use of goods and their circulation in the market. Where the acts of displaying a trademark occur solely in the context of "personal use" — without the goods entering commercial circulation — no "use of trademark" arises and trademark infringement cannot be established. 

The Court considered the following factors relevant. First, once a trademark owner lawfully transfers branded goods in Korea, the trademark right over those goods is exhausted; the purchaser of the goods may freely use, profit from, or dispose same — including reforming them — without restriction from the trademark holder. Even if the reform is so extensive as to constitute new production, infringement still does not arise so long as the reformed product remains in "personal use" and does not enter commercial circulation. Secondly, reform serves legitimate purposes — personal expression, recycling, upcycling, and extending product life — that engage values of property rights, freedom of expression, consumer welfare, and environmental sustainability; the scope of trademark protection must be calibrated to accommodate these interests. Thirdly, engaging a professional reformer to perform the work on one's behalf is in substance an exercise of property rights that warrants no different legal treatment.

Accordingly, the Court determined that, even though the registered trademarks appeared on the reformed products, no "use of trademark" in principle occurred and, therefore, held that the defendant's reform acts do not infringe Louis Vuitton's trademark rights.

▶Significance of the Decision

The above decision is significant in that the Supreme Court, for the first time, addressed the trademark law implications of the growing practice of luxury goods reformation. The decision firmly anchors "use of trademark" to commercial circulation, aligning the Korean law with the laws of other leading jurisdictions like EU and U.S. frameworks and making it clear that trademark rights do not extend into the purely personal sphere of a product owner.