{"id":628,"date":"2026-02-26T21:52:06","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T21:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?p=628"},"modified":"2026-02-26T21:52:19","modified_gmt":"2026-02-26T21:52:19","slug":"luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!-- Article Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"Article\",\n    \"headline\": \"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal\",\n    \"description\": \"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.\",\n    \"author\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Person\",\n        \"name\": \"Taejin Kim\",\n        \"jobTitle\": \"Attorney at Law\",\n        \"worksFor\": {\n            \"@type\": \"LegalService\",\n            \"name\": \"Atlas Legal (\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4)\",\n            \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\",\n            \"address\": {\n                \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\",\n                \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\",\n                \"addressRegion\": \"Songdo\"\n            }\n        }\n    },\n    \"publisher\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Organization\",\n        \"name\": \"Atlas Legal (\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4)\",\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\"\n    },\n    \"datePublished\": \"2026-02-27\",\n    \"dateModified\": \"2026-02-27\",\n    \"mainEntityOfPage\": {\n        \"@type\": \"WebPage\"\n    }\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- FAQ Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n    \"mainEntity\": [\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Is reforming a luxury bag trademark infringement in South Korea?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"According to the South Korean Supreme Court's 2024Da311181 ruling (February 26, 2026), when a reform service provider receives a reform request for personal use from the product owner and returns the reformed product, the act of displaying a trademark on the reformed product does not, in principle, constitute 'use of a trademark' under South Korea's Trademark Act and therefore does not amount to trademark infringement. However, infringement may be established in exceptional circumstances where the reform operator substantially controls the reform process and distributes the products in the commercial market.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Can a reform business operator be liable for trademark infringement in South Korea even if the owner requested the reform?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that a reform operator runs a registered business and provides reform services commercially does not automatically constitute 'use of a trademark' under South Korea's Trademark Act. The key factors are whether the reformed products were distributed in commercial markets and whether consumer confusion regarding the source of the goods occurred.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"When does reforming a luxury product become trademark infringement under South Korean law?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Trademark infringement may be established when the reform operator substantially controls and leads the reform process while producing and selling reformed products as their own goods for commercial distribution. The court considers factors including the circumstances of the reform request, who made final decisions on product design and quantity, the nature of the compensation received, the source of materials used, and the ownership of the reformed products.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Who bears the burden of proof in luxury bag reform trademark disputes in South Korea?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"The South Korean Supreme Court explicitly held that the burden of proving 'special circumstances' \u2014 that the reform operator controlled the process and distributed products commercially \u2014 lies with the trademark holder claiming infringement, not the reform operator.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Does South Korea's reform trademark ruling align with international standards?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"According to the Supreme Court's press release, this case attracted attention from the United States, Europe, Japan, and other countries. Foreign case law generally addresses restrictions on resale of reformed products to prevent consumer confusion, but rarely imposes trademark infringement liability on personal-use reforms. This South Korean ruling is consistent with prevailing international approaches.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What is the significance of South Korea's Supreme Court holding an oral argument in this case?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"South Korea's Supreme Court held a public oral argument on December 26, 2025 \u2014 only the sixth time for a small-bench (4-justice) case rather than a full-bench case. This reflects the legal significance and societal impact of the dispute. Expert opinions, including from U.S. intellectual property law scholars, were submitted and considered.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Can a reform operator face joint liability if they know the owner intends to resell the reformed product in South Korea?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Yes. The Supreme Court stated that if a reform operator knew or could have known that the owner intended the reformed product for commercial distribution rather than personal use, and still provided reform services, the reform operator may bear joint legal liability for trademark infringement under South Korean law.\"\n            }\n        }\n    ]\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- LocalBusiness Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"LocalBusiness\",\n    \"name\": \"Atlas Legal (\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4)\",\n    \"image\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/logo.png\",\n    \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\",\n    \"telephone\": \"+82-32-864-8300\",\n    \"address\": {\n        \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\",\n        \"streetAddress\": \"323 Incheon Tower-daero, B-dong 2901 (Songdo-dong, Centroad)\",\n        \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\",\n        \"addressRegion\": \"Yeonsu-gu, Incheon\",\n        \"addressCountry\": \"KR\"\n    },\n    \"priceRange\": \"$$\",\n    \"openingHoursSpecification\": {\n        \"@type\": \"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\n        \"dayOfWeek\": [\n            \"Monday\",\n            \"Tuesday\",\n            \"Wednesday\",\n            \"Thursday\",\n            \"Friday\"\n        ],\n        \"opens\": \"09:00\",\n        \"closes\": \"18:00\"\n    }\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- CSS (Required - Do Not Modify) --><\/p>\n<style>\n    \/* ===== Base Styles ===== *\/\n    body {\n        font-family: Georgia, serif;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        max-width: 1000px;\n        margin: 0 auto;\n        padding: 20px;\n        background-color: #f9f9f9;\n    }\n    .content-container {\n        background-color: white;\n        padding: 20px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    h2 {\n        font-size: 22px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    h3 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #34495e;\n        margin-top: 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    p, li {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n    }\n    ul, ol {\n        padding-left: 25px;\n        margin: 10px 0;\n    }\n    li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Table Styles (Required) ===== *\/\n    table {\n        width: 100%;\n        border-collapse: collapse;\n        margin: 15px 0;\n    }\n    th, td {\n        border: 1px solid #ddd;\n        padding: 10px;\n        text-align: left;\n        font-size: 16px;\n    }\n    th {\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Table of Contents ===== *\/\n    .toc {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .toc h2 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    .toc ul {\n        list-style-type: none;\n        padding-left: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .toc ul li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .toc a {\n        text-decoration: none !important;\n        color: #3498db;\n        border-bottom: none !important;\n    }\n    .toc a:hover {\n        text-decoration: underline;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Story Hook ===== *\/\n    .story-hook {\n        padding: 15px 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-hook p {\n        font-style: italic;\n        color: #555;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Direct Answer ===== *\/\n    .direct-answer {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        font-weight: 500;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Story Detail ===== *\/\n    .story-detail {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 20px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-detail h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        font-size: 19px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n    }\n    .story-detail p {\n        line-height: 1.8;\n        color: #444;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Disclaimer ===== *\/\n    .disclaimer {\n        font-size: 15px;\n        color: #666;\n        font-style: italic;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n    }\n    \/* ===== FAQ Section ===== *\/\n    .faq-section {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 30px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .faq-item {\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n    }\n    .faq-question {\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-bottom: 8px;\n        font-size: 18px;\n    }\n    .faq-answer {\n        color: #555;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Author Box ===== *\/\n    .author-box {\n        background-color: #f8f9fa;\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        border-left: 2px solid #722f37;\n    }\n    .author-box h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-name {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-info {\n        font-size: 16px;\n        color: #555;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n        line-height: 1.4;\n    }\n    .author-box a {\n        display: inline-block;\n        background-color: #722f37;\n        color: white;\n        padding: 12px 24px;\n        text-decoration: none;\n        border-radius: 6px;\n        font-size: 16px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        border: 2px solid #722f37;\n        cursor: pointer;\n        box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(114, 47, 55, 0.3);\n        margin-top: 5px;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Misc ===== *\/\n    br {\n        display: none;\n    }\n    strong {\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    \/* ===== Mobile Responsive (Required) ===== *\/\n    @media (max-width: 768px) {\n        body {\n            padding: 10px;\n        }\n        .content-container {\n            padding: 15px;\n        }\n        h2 {\n            font-size: 18px;\n        }\n        h3 {\n            font-size: 17px;\n        }\n        p, li {\n            font-size: 16px;\n        }\n        th, td {\n            font-size: 14px;\n            padding: 8px;\n        }\n    }\n    \/* ===== WordPress Theme Adjustment ===== *\/\n    .site-container, .content-area, .entry-content {\n        padding: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .entry-content > *:first-child {\n        margin-top: 0 !important;\n    }\n    .entry-content {\n        margin-top: 0 !important;\n    }\n    .kb-row-container, .kb-column-container {\n        margin: 0;\n        padding: 0;\n    }\n<\/style>\n<p><!-- Content Start --><\/p>\n<div class=\"content-container\">\n<p>    <!-- Table of Contents --><\/p>\n<div class=\"toc\" style=\"padding: 15px; border-radius: 0; margin-bottom: 20px; background-color: #f5f5f5;\">\n<h2 style=\"font-size: 20px; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 10px;\">Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: none; padding-left: 0; margin: 0;\">\n<li><a href=\"#section1\">1. What Were the Facts of This South Korean Trademark Case?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section2\">2. Why Did South Korea&#8217;s Supreme Court Reverse the Lower Courts?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section3\">3. When Can Reform Constitute Trademark Infringement Under South Korean Law?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section4\">4. What Does This Ruling Mean for Reform Businesses and Consumers in South Korea?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section5\">5. How Can Reform Operators Minimize Legal Risk Under South Korean Trademark Law?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section6\">6. FAQ<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Story Hook (50-80 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"story-hook\" style=\"padding: 15px 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; border-radius: 0; background-color: #f5f5f5;\">\n<p><strong>Real Case:<\/strong> 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&#8217; 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&#8217;s personal reform request really violate trademark rights?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Direct Answer (40-60 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"direct-answer\" style=\"padding: 15px; border-radius: 0; margin-bottom: 20px; font-weight: 500; background-color: #f5f5f5;\">\n        <strong>Key Takeaway:<\/strong> In its landmark ruling on February 26, 2026 (Case No. 2024Da311181), the Supreme Court of South Korea held that when a reform operator receives a request for personal use from the product owner and returns the reformed product, the display of a trademark on that product does not, in principle, constitute &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; under the Trademark Act and therefore does not amount to trademark infringement.\n    <\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Story Detail (100-150 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"story-detail\" style=\"padding: 20px; border-radius: 0; margin: 20px 0; background-color: #f5f5f5;\">\n<h3>Why Did South Korea&#8217;s Supreme Court Hold a Public Oral Argument?<\/h3>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">* This article is based on the Supreme Court of South Korea&#8217;s official press release and verified media reports.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;s right to use their own property under South Korean law. Recognizing the case&#8217;s legal significance and societal impact, the Supreme Court held a public oral argument on December 26, 2025 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Section 1 --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section1\">1. What Were the Facts of This South Korean Trademark Case?<\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Lower Court Decisions in South Korea<\/h3>\n<p>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 &#8220;goods&#8221; with exchange value under South Korea&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<h3>Supreme Court Public Oral Argument<\/h3>\n<p>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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Section 2 --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section2\">2. Why Did South Korea&#8217;s Supreme Court Reverse the Lower Courts?<\/h2>\n<p>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 &#8220;trademark itself&#8221; 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).<\/p>\n<h3>The Meaning of &#8220;Use of a Trademark&#8221; Under South Korea&#8217;s Trademark Act<\/h3>\n<p>Article 2(1)(xi) of South Korea&#8217;s Trademark Act defines &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; 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 &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<h3>Legal Assessment of Personal-Use Reforms Under South Korean Law<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court of South Korea established two core legal principles.<\/p>\n<p><strong>First,<\/strong> 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 &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; and therefore trademark infringement does not arise.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Second,<\/strong> 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 &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; under South Korea&#8217;s Trademark Act, and trademark infringement does not arise.<\/p>\n<h3>Problems with the Lower Courts&#8217; Reasoning<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the lower courts&#8217; reliance on &#8220;business registration&#8221; and &#8220;commercial reform operations&#8221; 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 &#8220;exchange value&#8221; in reformed products cannot be equated with &#8220;use of a trademark.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Section 3 --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section3\">3. When Can Reform Constitute Trademark Infringement Under South Korean Law?<\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>The Meaning of &#8220;Special Circumstances&#8221; Under South Korean Trademark Law<\/h3>\n<p>Even where the reform operator formally appears to have provided a reform service at the owner&#8217;s request for the owner&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<h3>Criteria for Determining &#8220;Special Circumstances&#8221;<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court of South Korea provided specific factors for evaluating whether &#8220;special circumstances&#8221; exist.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tr>\n<th>Factor<\/th>\n<th>Specific Considerations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Circumstances of the reform request<\/td>\n<td>Whether the owner voluntarily requested the reform or the reform operator proactively solicited the work<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Decision-making authority<\/td>\n<td>Who made the final decisions regarding the purpose, form, and quantity of the reformed products<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Nature of the compensation<\/td>\n<td>Whether the payment received by the reform operator constitutes a repair fee or has the character of a product sale price<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Source and proportion of materials<\/td>\n<td>Whether the materials used came from the owner&#8217;s product or were separately prepared by the reform operator, and the relative proportion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ownership of reformed products<\/td>\n<td>Whether the ownership of the reformed products is clear and whether they were returned to the original owner<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<h3>Burden of Proof in South Korean Trademark Disputes<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court explicitly held that the burden of proving these &#8220;special circumstances&#8221; lies with the <strong>trademark holder<\/strong> claiming that the reform operator&#8217;s conduct constitutes infringement. This represents a significant defensive advantage for reform operators under South Korean law.<\/p>\n<h3>Joint Liability When the Operator Knows the Owner&#8217;s Commercial Intent<\/h3>\n<p>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 <strong>joint legal liability<\/strong> for trademark infringement under South Korean law.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Section 4 --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section4\">4. What Does This Ruling Mean for Reform Businesses and Consumers in South Korea?<\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Confirmation of Consumer Property Rights in South Korea<\/h3>\n<p>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 \u2014 reform operators \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<h3>Legal Certainty for South Korea&#8217;s Reform Industry<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Consistency with International Standards<\/h3>\n<p>According to the Supreme Court&#8217;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&#8217;s alignment with global intellectual property standards.<\/p>\n<h3>Alignment with Sustainable Consumption Values<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Section 5 --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section5\">5. How Can Reform Operators Minimize Legal Risk Under South Korean Trademark Law?<\/h2>\n<p>While this ruling provides principled protection for reform activities, &#8220;special circumstances&#8221; can still give rise to trademark infringement liability. Practical precautions are therefore essential for reform operators in South Korea.<\/p>\n<h3>Key Precautions for Reform Operators<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Ownership Verification Procedures:<\/strong> 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 &#8220;special circumstance&#8221; supporting infringement under South Korean law.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Confirmation of Personal-Use Purpose:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Managing Decision-Making Authority:<\/strong> 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 &#8220;special circumstance&#8221; under South Korean trademark law.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Material Source Documentation:<\/strong> It is important to clearly distinguish and document whether the materials used in the reform came from the owner&#8217;s product or from the reform operator&#8217;s own inventory.<\/p>\n<h3>Defense Strategies Against Trademark Infringement Claims in South Korea<\/h3>\n<p>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 &#8220;special circumstances&#8221; lies with the trademark holder under South Korean law, actively challenging the existence of such circumstances is an effective defense strategy.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- FAQ Section --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section6\">6. FAQ<\/h2>\n<div class=\"faq-section\" style=\"padding: 20px; border-radius: 0; margin: 30px 0; background-color: #f5f5f5;\">\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q1. Is reforming a luxury bag trademark infringement in South Korea?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. According to the Supreme Court of South Korea&#8217;s 2024Da311181 ruling (February 26, 2026), when a reform operator receives a reform request for personal use from the product owner and returns the reformed product, it does not, in principle, constitute &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; under South Korea&#8217;s Trademark Act and therefore does not amount to trademark infringement. However, infringement may be established in exceptional circumstances where the reform operator substantially controls the reform process and distributes products commercially.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q2. Can a reform business operator face trademark liability in South Korea even when providing reform services commercially?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. The Supreme Court held that operating a registered business and providing reform services commercially does not automatically establish &#8220;use of a trademark&#8221; under South Korea&#8217;s Trademark Act. The critical inquiry is whether reformed products were distributed in commercial markets and whether consumer confusion about product origin occurred.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q3. Does the existence of exchange value in reformed products mean trademark infringement under South Korean law?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. No. The Supreme Court of South Korea ruled that the existence of exchange value and trademark use cannot be evaluated on the same basis. The mere fact that a reformed product possesses potential exchange value does not automatically make it &#8220;goods&#8221; under the Trademark Act or establish &#8220;use of a trademark.&#8221; The key criterion is whether the product was actually distributed in commercial markets.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q4. When does reforming a luxury product exceptionally constitute trademark infringement in South Korea?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. When the reform operator substantially controls and leads the reform process while producing and selling reformed products as their own goods for commercial distribution. The court examines the circumstances of the reform request, who made final decisions on product specifications, the nature of compensation received, the source and proportion of materials, and the ownership of the reformed products.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q5. Who bears the burden of proof in luxury bag reform trademark disputes in South Korea?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. The Supreme Court explicitly placed the burden of proving &#8220;special circumstances&#8221; on the trademark holder who claims that the reform operator&#8217;s conduct constitutes infringement. The reform operator does not need to prove that special circumstances are absent.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q6. Can a reform operator face joint liability if they know the owner intends to resell the reformed product?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Yes. Under South Korean law, if a reform operator knew or could have known that the owner intended to distribute the reformed product commercially rather than use it personally, and still provided reform services or otherwise facilitated the conduct, the operator may bear joint legal liability for trademark infringement.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q7. Does this South Korean ruling have international significance?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Absolutely. According to the Supreme Court&#8217;s press release, this case was watched by the United States, Europe, Japan, and other countries. It is the first ruling by a South Korean court to establish the legal framework for reform activities and trademark rights, and it provides specific criteria for determining when exceptions apply. This aligns South Korea&#8217;s trademark law with prevailing international approaches.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Experience Statement --><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\" style=\"margin: 20px 0;\">* 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.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Author Box: Taejin Kim --><\/p>\n<div class=\"author-box\" style=\"background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 20px; border-radius: 0; margin-top: 30px; border-left: 2px solid #722f37;\">\n<h3>About the Author<\/h3>\n<div class=\"author-name\">Taejin Kim | Managing Partner<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Corporate Advisory, Corporate Disputes &#038; White-Collar Crime<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Former Prosecutor | 33rd Class, Judicial Research and Training Institute<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">LL.B &#038; LL.M. in Criminal Law, Korea University | LL.M., University of California, Davis<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Atlas Legal | Songdo, Incheon, South Korea<\/div>\n<p>        <a href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Visit Atlas Legal Website<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Table of Contents 1. What Were the Facts of This South Korean Trademark Case? 2. Why Did South Korea&#8217;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&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[218,228],"tags":[452,450,337,449,451],"class_list":["post-628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corporate-counseling","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property-south-korea","tag-luxury-bag-reform","tag-supreme-court-korea","tag-trademark-infringement-south-korea","tag-upcycling-trademark-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"South Korea&#039;s Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ko_KR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"South Korea&#039;s Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Atlas Legal Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-26T21:52:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-26T21:52:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15\ubd84\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\"},\"headline\":\"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-26T21:52:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-26T21:52:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"intellectual property South Korea\",\"luxury bag reform\",\"Supreme Court Korea\",\"trademark infringement South Korea\",\"upcycling trademark law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Corporate Counseling\",\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/\",\"name\":\"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-26T21:52:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-26T21:52:19+00:00\",\"description\":\"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\ud648\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"width\":540,\"height\":485,\"caption\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\",\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/author\\\/prinz001\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal","description":"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/","og_locale":"ko_KR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal","og_description":"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.","og_url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/","og_site_name":"Atlas Legal Blog","article_published_time":"2026-02-26T21:52:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-26T21:52:19+00:00","author":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04":"15\ubd84"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/"},"author":{"name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55"},"headline":"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis","datePublished":"2026-02-26T21:52:06+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-26T21:52:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/"},"wordCount":2625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["intellectual property South Korea","luxury bag reform","Supreme Court Korea","trademark infringement South Korea","upcycling trademark law"],"articleSection":["Corporate Counseling","Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/","name":"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis | Atlas Legal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-02-26T21:52:06+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-26T21:52:19+00:00","description":"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled that reforming a luxury bag for personal use does not constitute trademark infringement. A landmark decision with global implications for IP law and consumer rights.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/luxury-bag-reform-trademark-infringement-south-korea\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\ud648","item":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Is Reforming a Luxury Bag Trademark Infringement in South Korea? Supreme Court Case 2024Da311181 Analysis"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ko-KR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","width":540,"height":485,"caption":"Atlas Legal English Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55","name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr"],"url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/author\/prinz001\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=628"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/628\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":629,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/628\/revisions\/629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}