The IP Runway: Issue No. 14
Intellectual property insights for the global business of fashion.
When the Same Court Hears the Same Defense Twice
Edition fourteen is a sequel.
In edition six, a Paris court ruled for Chanel against an upcycling company called Kamad Reworked. Less than four months later, the same court has ruled against the same company again, this time for Louis Vuitton, and the damages come to €920,000.
The case, fast
Kamad Reworked is a French company that made clothing and accessories out of authentic Louis Vuitton products, cutting them up and building new pieces from the fragments. Louis Vuitton sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and parasitism.
On September 17, the Paris Judicial Court upheld all three claims. It ordered the company and its three managers, jointly, to pay €920,000 in damages. The largest share, €750,000, was for infringing Louis Vuitton’s reputed marks, which French law protects more strongly than ordinary trademarks. Another €10,000 covered a separate French figurative mark, and €160,000 covered unfair competition and parasitism.
The judgment also bans Kamad and its managers from making clothing, accessories, or jewelry from pieces of authentic Louis Vuitton products bearing the marks at issue, with a penalty of €1,500 per item. It orders the infringing stock destroyed and the infringing content taken down.
A cut-up bag, a hashtag, and a six-figure bill.
How three defenses fell apart
Kamad built its defense on exhaustion of rights, environmental protection, and freedom of expression. The court rejected all three.
Here is where this case goes a step beyond Chanel. In May, Kamad failed to show that its Chanel buttons and fasteners came from authorized goods. This time, authenticity was not the problem. The court found nothing suggesting the Louis Vuitton items were counterfeit and noted they were bought in France through auctions or on Vinted. It still held that exhaustion did not apply, because a bag cut into new products is no longer the good Louis Vuitton put on the market.
On sustainability, the court found no legal basis for letting environmental goals override trademark rights. It also noted the original items could have been resold intact.
On expression, the court held that even if the pieces had artistic qualities, the aim was commercial, and that freedom does not excuse circumventing trademark law.
The court also looked past the products to how they were sold. It weighed the use of the Louis Vuitton name in Instagram hashtags, provenance labels, authentic goods and packaging in promotional material, a reused photograph of the house’s artistic director, and a jacket imitating a Spring-Summer 2023 runway piece. In its view, these let Kamad benefit from Louis Vuitton’s reputation without making the same investment.
Louis Vuitton did not win everything. The court rejected part of its claim that certain products harmed the house’s image because of their style, pointing to the house’s own collaborations with repurposed items.
Same court, same company, a longer list of reasons.
Why this matters beyond one upcycler
Two luxury houses have now beaten the same company, on the same core question, in the same year. Chanel and Louis Vuitton are different brands with different facts, and the court still treated the central move the same way: taking branded goods apart to make something new is not resale.
Genuine goods are not a shield. The Chanel ruling turned partly on missing proof of origin. Here, origin was not the issue, and the brand still won.
Marketing is part of the exposure. Hashtags and promotional images were not treated as harmless extras. The court weighed them in its findings and ordered content removed.
Managers can be personally liable. The court held the three managers jointly responsible with the company, reasoning that they directed the activity together and kept going after Louis Vuitton objected. For a small brand, that can turn a company dispute into a personal one.
One caution. This is a first instance ruling from a single French court, and Kamad can appeal. It shows where that court stands, not where every court will land.
Reading the runway
In May, a Paris court told an upcycler that cutting up Chanel pieces for new products was not protected. In September, it told the same company the same thing about Louis Vuitton and added a €920,000 bill.
Upcycling is not going away, and neither are the luxury houses willing to test where the line sits. For now, one court has answered the same question twice.
More soon.
The IP Runway
Sources: FashionUnited, Lux Juris, Clubic, Les Affiches Parisiennes (via mesinfos.fr), Kohen Avocats, and the Wolters Kluwer Trademark Blog, reporting on Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Kamad Reworked, Paris Judicial Court, September 17, 2026.
Leave a Reply