IP NEWS – TRADEMARKS

Upcycling and counterfeiting: caution regarding the use of distinctive signs protected by IP Law

TJ Paris, 3e ch., 1re sect., 21 mai 2026, n° 25/00621

The Paris Court has provided important clarifications regarding the legal risks associated with the upcycling of luxury goods.

In this case, Chanel accused Kamad Reworked Company of manufacturing and selling jewelry made from authentic components (buttons, buckles) that were incorporated into new designs and bore the Chanel trademark. Despite formal notices, the sales continued.

The court rejected the argument of exhaustion of rights raised by Kamad Reworked: the disassembly and reuse of parts to create a new product was not marketed with the brand’s consent. The exhaustion of trademark rights, which in principle allows for the resale of an authentic product after its initial release onto the market, does not apply when the product is transformed to create a new one.

Infringement is found:

• for semi-figurative trademarks, due to the dominant nature of the monogram and the likelihood of confusion, which is not negated by references to upcycling;
• for word trademarks, due to an identical reproduction on similar products..

Added to this are deceptive business practices, particularly through the issuance of certificates that falsely claim “authenticity” or “originality,” leading consumers to believe there is a connection with Chanel.

The harm is twofold: economic (unjust profits derived from the brand’s appeal) and moral (damage to the brand’s image and perceived exclusivity). The company was ordered to cease sales, destroy its inventory, pay a provisional sum of €75,000, and disclose its financial records.

EXPERT OPINION FROM FIRSH:

The lesson is clear: upcycling is not a legal gray area for trademark owners. Without the trademark owner’s express authorization, affixing distinctive signs to repurposed products exposes the seller to high risks of infringement and deceptive practices.