# Mr. A cleaned and disassembled an old luxury bag, decorated it with his own unique design, and sold it on an open market. Among customers, there were responses such as “satisfied with purchasing high-quality reformed products at affordable prices.” However, Mr. A has recently been confused after receiving a certified letter from the trademark owner. The letter stated that Mr. A infringed on the trademark rights and demanded that he stop selling the products.
On the 13th, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) announced that caution is needed because, like Mr. A, if someone creates and sells reformed or upcycled products while leaving the original product’s trademark intact, they may become embroiled in trademark infringement controversies.
For example, recently, products made by transforming the “Nike Reusable Shopping Bag” into crossbody bags, backpacks, wallets, pouches, etc., have been sold online and gained popularity.
Regarding this, some interpret that “it is a modified genuine product and is no different from selling used products,” or “if it is disclosed as a reformed product and sold, it is not problematic.”
This aligns with the perception that reformed and upcycled products have attracted public attention for several years as part of an eco-friendly consumption culture, and that transforming shabby luxury bags or clothing into completely new designs and selling them serves the positive function of protecting the environment and reducing overconsumption.
However, many reformed and upcycled products sold online modify the original product’s appearance into a “completely different form” without the trademark owner’s consent, while keeping the trademark and logo intact, which creates the possibility of trademark infringement. This should be approached differently from simply processing or repairing parts to maintain or restore the original product’s quality and shape.
As a precedent, the Supreme Court also left a ruling with the same intent (2003 ruling 2002Do3445). In the ruling, the Supreme Court stated, “If processing or repair harms the identity with the original product to the extent that it is practically equivalent to producing a new product, it constitutes trademark infringement (Article 109, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Trademark Act).”
In particular, trademark infringement is a non-complaint offense, so even if the trademark owner does not raise an issue with the sale of reformed products, if a buyer reports the seller and a violation of the Trademark Act is recognized, punishment can be imposed. This is an important point not to overlook.
Care is also needed when the first buyer, who knows the product is reformed, resells the product as a used item. This is because there is a possibility of innocent damage where prospective buyers mistakenly purchase the product believing it to be genuine during the sales process.
Using products that employ trademarks or logos identical or similar to widely known third-party trademarks in Korea and selling them in a way that causes confusion with others’ goods may also constitute unfair competition (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act).
Park Ju-yeon, head of the Trademark Special Judicial Police Division at KIPO, emphasized, “Reformed and upcycled products can have the positive effect of spreading a consumption culture with good intentions such as environmental protection, but they can also become a cause of trademark infringement and intellectual property disputes.”
She added, “While it is not problematic for individuals to create and use reformed or upcycled products, selling, distributing, or transferring them may violate the Trademark Act, so special caution is required.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
