Top court rules that altering luxury goods for personal use does not violate trademark law in historic case
Published: 26 Feb. 2026, 20:44
![The logo of Louis Vuitton is pictured on the brand's store on the Champs-Élysées Avenue in Paris on Sept. 20, 2017. [AP/YONHAP]](https://koreaseafood.online/data/photo/2026/02/26/a1381e2c-8157-4be0-9743-23cd919a900f.jpg)
The logo of Louis Vuitton is pictured on the brand's store on the Champs-Élysées Avenue in Paris on Sept. 20, 2017. [AP/YONHAP]
You can pay to alter your old Louis Vuitton bag — just don’t plan on selling it.
Korea’s top court ruled for the first time that tailoring services that alter luxury goods at an owner’s request for their personal use do not violate trademark law, but producing and selling those modified goods do.
The Supreme Court’s second division on Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that had sided with the French luxury house Louis Vuitton in a trademark infringement and damages suit against an alteration service provider surnamed Lee. The court sent the case back to the Intellectual Property High Court for further review.
From 2017 to 2021, Lee took Louis Vuitton bags from customers and dismantled them, after which they used the fabric and metal parts to create new bags and wallets. Lee charged between 100,000 won and 700,000 won ($70 to $500) per item.
Louis Vuitton filed the suit in February 2022, arguing that Lee’s business undermined the brand’s ability to show their products’ origins and to assure customers of their quality, thereby infringing on its trademark rights.
A district court ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton in October 2023 and ordered Lee not to manufacture customized products using the brand’s materials and to pay 15 million won in damages. According to the court, the altered products qualified as “goods” under the Trademark Act because they were traded as independent objects of commerce, and ordinary consumers could misidentify the products as having been made by Louis Vuitton. It concluded that Lee had engaged in the “use of a trademark” and an appellate court upheld the decision.
![The logo of fashion house Louis Vuitton is seen on a store in Cannes, France, on May 16, 2024. [REUTERS/YONHAP]](https://koreaseafood.online/data/photo/2026/02/26/7e1860ed-b52c-410a-8640-0880ea1a04d1.jpg)
The logo of fashion house Louis Vuitton is seen on a store in Cannes, France, on May 16, 2024. [REUTERS/YONHAP]
The Supreme Court, however, had a different view.
It said that when a tailor receives a request from an owner to alter or process a product for personal use, that conduct does not constitute “use of a trademark” under the law. Lee accepted orders to create items of a specific design, shape and purpose and returned the finished product to the customer. That alone did not amount to infringement, the court said.
At the same time, the court outlined circumstances in which such customization could infringe trademark rights. Even if a service appears to be for personal use, it can still count as infringement if the tailor sells the redesigned products as their own.
“Whether such special circumstances exist should be determined by comprehensively considering factors including the background and details of the customization request; who made the final decisions regarding the purpose, form and quantity of the products; the nature of the compensation received; and the source of the materials used,” the court said. “The burden of proof lies with the trademark holder.”
“If a luxury goods owner requests customization not for personal use but to sell in the market, and the service provider knew or could have known that this would constitute trademark infringement but still provided the service and took part in the conduct, they may bear joint legal liability for trademark infringement,” the court added.
The ruling marks the Supreme Court’s first decision on whether customizing branded luxury goods constitutes trademark infringement.
“This case is being closely watched in the United States, Europe and Japan, and its social impact is likely to be significant,” the court said.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY KIM JI-HYE [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)