Paris Court orders Kamad Reworked to pay Louis Vuitton 920,000 euros in damages

On September 17, 2026, the Paris Judicial Court delivered a judgment in a trade mark dispute between French luxury label Louis Vuitton and French apparel firm Kamad Reworked, which manufactures and markets clothing made from authentic Louis Vuitton products.

The court found that Kamad infringed Louis Vuitton’s rights in those and other trade marks and awarded the company 920,000 euros in damages (1.22 million dollars): 750,000 euros for infringement of its reputed marks, 10,000 euros for infringement of a separate French figurative mark, and 160,000 euros for unfair competition and parasitism. The court also imposed injunctive relief and ordered the destruction of identified infringing products.

French fashion house Chanel recently obtained a decision against the same company. In the Louis Vuitton case, the court determined that the defendant infringed upon the fashion house's rights on the basis of the enhanced protection granted to trade marks with a reputation.

Kamad Reworked relied on three primary defence arguments: trade mark exhaustion, environmental protection and freedom of expression. The Paris Judicial Court rejected all three claims.

Court rules upcycled goods constitute new product offerings

Addressing the exhaustion defence, the court established that the garments commercialised by the defendant were not the same goods as those originally placed on the market by Louis Vuitton. Consequently, distributing these transformed items required direct consent from the trade mark proprietor.

Because consent was not granted, the court ruled that the statutory provisions governing trade mark exhaustion could not apply. Under existing intellectual property law, the primary condition for exhaustion requires that the original goods bearing the mark enter the market with the proprietor’s authorization. Reconstructed garments fail to meet this condition and cannot be classified as secondary commercialisation.

Environmental claims dismissed in commercial context

The court also declined to recognize environmental protection or sustainability as a valid defence against trade mark infringement. The decision noted that no legal framework permits environmental objectives to override established intellectual property rights in commercial matters.

Evidence presented during the proceedings demonstrated that the authentic Louis Vuitton items utilized by the defendant retained significant value on the second-hand market. The original products could have been resold without structural modification. By altering these marketable items into new products, the defendant replaced items already suitable for circular retail. The court concluded that the business operated as a commercial entity seeking profit rather than a purely environmental initiative.

Commercial activity excludes freedom of expression defence

Regarding freedom of expression, the defendant referenced Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to justify its creative activities. The court ruled that even if the altered clothing possessed original artistic qualities, the firm’s primary objective remained circumventing trade mark law to sell goods commercially.

The judicial panel highlighted that freedom of expression cannot supersede trade mark protection when applied to commercial trade rather than a public interest debate.