Cut, Sew, but Don’t Sell: South Korea’s Supreme Court Clarifies Trademark Limits
As recently reported by Korea JoongAng Daily, South Korea’s Supreme Court (second division) has issued its first decision regarding whether “upcycling” or customizing branded luxury goods can amount to trademark infringement.
The case involved a tailor, who provided a customization service by using the customers’ own Louis Vuitton bags to create new bags and wallets in different sizes and shapes (see example below of the bag before and after customization). Louis Vuitton filed the suit against the tailor in 2022, alleging that the tailor’s service infringed its trademark rights and could lead customers to believe the customized products came from, or were approved by, the brand.
The district court originally ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton and reasoned that the customized products could cause consumers to associate the product as being made by the brand. The court ordered an injunction barring the tailor from using materials bearing Louis Vuitton’s trademarks in the production of bags and wallets and also required him to pay monetary damages.
However, on appeal, the Supreme Court held that customizing a brand’s product for personal use at the owner’s request does not itself constitute trademark infringement. In contrast, if the tailor were to sell the customized product as its own, that could amount to infringement.
The court listed the factors to consider, which include: the details of the customization request, who decided the purpose, form and quantity of the products, the compensation received, and the source of the materials used. If the tailor were to knowingly provide the service to a customer who planned to resell the customized product, they could be jointly liable for trademark infringement.
The case has reportedly been sent back to the Intellectual Property High Court for further review.

Source: district court decision
Authors: Ayesha Khanna, Kelly Zhang and Tyler Wang, 2025/2026 Articling Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@alexanderdaniel
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Cut, Sew, but Don’t Sell: South Korea’s Supreme Court Clarifies Trademark Limits
As recently reported by Korea JoongAng Daily, South Korea’s Supreme Court (second division) has issued its first decision regarding whether “upcycling” or customizing branded luxury goods can amount… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In…