Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis
Table of Contents
- 1. What Were the Facts of This South Korean Trademark Case?
- 2. Why Did South Korea’s Supreme Court Reverse the Lower Courts?
- 3. When Can Reform Constitute Trademark Infringement Under South Korean Law?
- 4. What Does This Ruling Mean for Reform Businesses and Consumers in South Korea?
- 5. How Can Reform Operators Minimize Legal Risk Under South Korean Trademark Law?
- 6. FAQ
Real Case: A craftsman with 50 years of experience in luxury bag repair in South Korea received a lawsuit one day. Louis Vuitton claimed that reforming customers’ bags into wallets and smaller bags constituted trademark infringement. Both the first and second instance courts ordered the craftsman to pay KRW 15 million in damages. Could simply fulfilling a customer’s personal reform request really violate trademark rights?
Why Did South Korea’s Supreme Court Hold a Public Oral Argument?
* This article is based on the Supreme Court of South Korea’s official press release and verified media reports.
This case transcended a simple dispute between a small repair shop and a global luxury brand. It raised fundamental questions about the limits of trademark protection versus the consumer’s right to use their own property under South Korean law. Recognizing the case’s legal significance and societal impact, the Supreme Court held a public oral argument on December 26, 2025 — only the sixth such hearing for a small-bench case in South Korean judicial history. Louis Vuitton argued that reforming was essentially manufacturing counterfeit goods. The reform operator countered that personal-use reforms commissioned by product owners are not treated as trademark infringement in most jurisdictions worldwide. With amicus briefs from U.S. intellectual property law experts also submitted, the Court delivered a ruling that established the legal framework for reform and trademark rights in South Korea for the first time.
1. What Were the Facts of This South Korean Trademark Case?
This case involved French luxury brand Louis Vuitton filing a trademark infringement lawsuit against a reform operator who ran a repair shop in Gangnam, Seoul, South Korea. The reform operator had been receiving requests from Louis Vuitton bag owners between 2017 and 2021, using the original bag materials to create different styles of bags and wallets, and charging repair fees ranging from KRW 100,000 to KRW 700,000 (approximately USD 70 to USD 500) per item.
Lower Court Decisions in South Korea
Both the first instance and appellate courts in South Korea ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton. The lower courts held that the reformed products constituted independent “goods” with exchange value under South Korea’s Trademark Act, and that ordinary consumers could be misled into believing the products were manufactured by Louis Vuitton. Accordingly, the courts ordered the reform operator to pay KRW 15 million (approximately USD 10,700) in damages.
Supreme Court Public Oral Argument
The Second Division of the Supreme Court of South Korea (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) held a public oral argument on December 26, 2025. Louis Vuitton argued that reform is essentially the manufacture of counterfeit goods and that permitting it would create a market for counterfeits. The reform operator’s side contended that personal-use reforms are not considered trademark infringement in other jurisdictions, that the parties are not in a competitive relationship, and that there is no possibility of consumer confusion regarding the source of the products.
2. Why Did South Korea’s Supreme Court Reverse the Lower Courts?
The Supreme Court of South Korea reversed the lower court decisions, premising its analysis on the principle that the core interest protected by the Trademark Act is not the “trademark itself” but rather the function of identifying the source of goods and preventing consumer confusion (Supreme Court of South Korea, February 26, 2026, Case No. 2024Da311181).
The Meaning of “Use of a Trademark” Under South Korea’s Trademark Act
Article 2(1)(xi) of South Korea’s Trademark Act defines “use of a trademark” as acts including displaying a trademark on goods or their packaging, transferring or delivering goods bearing a trademark, and displaying or disseminating trademarks in advertisements or transaction documents. The Supreme Court held that “use of a trademark” does not simply mean that a trademark is physically attached to or visibly present on a product. Rather, for trademark use to be recognized, the act must serve the function of indicating the source of goods or forming consumer perceptions in commercial transactions.
Legal Assessment of Personal-Use Reforms Under South Korean Law
The Supreme Court of South Korea established two core legal principles.
First, when the owner of a product bearing a registered trademark reforms that product into a different form for personal use, and the reformed product is not offered for commercial trade or distributed in the market but used only for personal purposes, the act of displaying a trademark on the reformed product does not constitute “use of a trademark” and therefore trademark infringement does not arise.
Second, even when a reform operator receives a reform request from the owner for personal use, performs the reform, and returns the reformed product to the owner, the display of a trademark on the reformed product does not, in principle, constitute “use of a trademark” under South Korea’s Trademark Act, and trademark infringement does not arise.
Problems with the Lower Courts’ Reasoning
The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the lower courts’ reliance on “business registration” and “commercial reform operations” as factors establishing trademark use. The Court noted that if trademark use were recognized merely because a reform operator conducts business commercially, an excessively broad range of commissioned activities based on personal use could be swept into the scope of infringement under South Korean law. The Court also held that the existence of “exchange value” in reformed products cannot be equated with “use of a trademark.”
3. When Can Reform Constitute Trademark Infringement Under South Korean Law?
While ruling that reform does not, in principle, constitute trademark infringement, the Supreme Court of South Korea also established criteria for exceptional circumstances under which infringement may be found.
The Meaning of “Special Circumstances” Under South Korean Trademark Law
Even where the reform operator formally appears to have provided a reform service at the owner’s request for the owner’s personal use, if in substance the reform operator controlled and led the entire reform process while producing and selling reformed products as their own goods for commercial distribution in the market, trademark infringement may be established under South Korean law.
Criteria for Determining “Special Circumstances”
The Supreme Court of South Korea provided specific factors for evaluating whether “special circumstances” exist.
| Factor | Specific Considerations |
|---|---|
| Circumstances of the reform request | Whether the owner voluntarily requested the reform or the reform operator proactively solicited the work |
| Decision-making authority | Who made the final decisions regarding the purpose, form, and quantity of the reformed products |
| Nature of the compensation | Whether the payment received by the reform operator constitutes a repair fee or has the character of a product sale price |
| Source and proportion of materials | Whether the materials used came from the owner’s product or were separately prepared by the reform operator, and the relative proportion |
| Ownership of reformed products | Whether the ownership of the reformed products is clear and whether they were returned to the original owner |
Burden of Proof in South Korean Trademark Disputes
The Supreme Court explicitly held that the burden of proving these “special circumstances” lies with the trademark holder claiming that the reform operator’s conduct constitutes infringement. This represents a significant defensive advantage for reform operators under South Korean law.
Joint Liability When the Operator Knows the Owner’s Commercial Intent
The Court further held that if a reform operator knew or could have known that the owner intended the reformed product not for personal use but for commercial distribution in the market, and still provided reform services, the reform operator may bear joint legal liability for trademark infringement under South Korean law.
4. What Does This Ruling Mean for Reform Businesses and Consumers in South Korea?
This Supreme Court ruling, the first in South Korea to establish legal principles regarding whether reform constitutes trademark infringement, carries significant implications for both the reform industry and consumers.
Confirmation of Consumer Property Rights in South Korea
The right of consumers to repair, modify, and customize legitimately purchased goods according to their needs and preferences is a fundamental aspect of constitutionally protected property rights. This ruling confirmed that not only may owners reform their own products, but they may also commission technical experts — reform operators — to do so without, in principle, incurring trademark liability. Had the lower court decisions been upheld, the practical effect would have been to force consumers to purchase new products rather than reform existing ones.
Legal Certainty for South Korea’s Reform Industry
The reform and upcycling industry in South Korea had operated under significant legal uncertainty due to the risk of trademark infringement litigation. This ruling provides clear standards establishing that personal-use reform services do not, in principle, constitute trademark infringement under South Korean law.
Consistency with International Standards
According to the Supreme Court’s press release, this case attracted attention from the United States, Europe, Japan, and other jurisdictions. Foreign case law generally addresses restrictions on resale of reformed products to prevent consumer source confusion, but rarely imposes trademark infringement liability on reforms conducted for personal use. This ruling is consistent with the prevailing international approach and strengthens South Korea’s alignment with global intellectual property standards.
Alignment with Sustainable Consumption Values
In an era of increasing emphasis on climate change mitigation and circular economies, the culture of repairing and extending the lifespan of products is a value worth encouraging. This South Korean Supreme Court ruling also serves to provide legal support for the upcycling and sustainable consumption movement.
5. How Can Reform Operators Minimize Legal Risk Under South Korean Trademark Law?
While this ruling provides principled protection for reform activities, “special circumstances” can still give rise to trademark infringement liability. Practical precautions are therefore essential for reform operators in South Korea.
Key Precautions for Reform Operators
Ownership Verification Procedures: Reform operators should establish procedures to confirm that the person commissioning the reform is the legitimate owner of the product. Receiving bulk reform requests from third parties who are not the product owners may be viewed as a “special circumstance” supporting infringement under South Korean law.
Confirmation of Personal-Use Purpose: Operators should verify whether the reform request is for personal use or commercial purposes. If a client requests mass production of identical designs or has an evident intent to resell, it is advisable to decline the commission.
Managing Decision-Making Authority: The owner should make the final decisions regarding the form, design, and quantity of reformed products. If the reform operator drives product design and produces items in a ready-made fashion, this may be evaluated as a “special circumstance” under South Korean trademark law.
Material Source Documentation: It is important to clearly distinguish and document whether the materials used in the reform came from the owner’s product or from the reform operator’s own inventory.
Defense Strategies Against Trademark Infringement Claims in South Korea
Drawing on extensive experience handling intellectual property disputes, the defense strategy following this ruling should focus on the following elements. First, demonstrate that the reform was requested voluntarily by the product owner. Second, establish that the reformed products were returned to the owner and were not distributed in commercial markets. Since the burden of proving “special circumstances” lies with the trademark holder under South Korean law, actively challenging the existence of such circumstances is an effective defense strategy.
6. FAQ
Atlas Legal has extensive experience in intellectual property disputes including trademark infringement litigation and corporate advisory services in South Korea. In emerging legal areas such as this landmark Supreme Court ruling, precise understanding of case law and thorough factual analysis are paramount to achieving favorable outcomes.
* The legal information presented in this article is intended for general guidance purposes only and may vary depending on the specific facts of individual cases. For actual legal matters, please consult with an attorney licensed in South Korea.