The court has ruled that creating new products using luxury goods also constitutes trademark infringement.
According to Yonhap News on the 12th, the Civil Division 63 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Park Chan-seok) ruled in a lawsuit filed by Louis Vuitton against reformer Mr. A for trademark infringement prohibition, stating, "Mr. A must not manufacture reform products using fabric from bags bearing Louis Vuitton's trademark and must pay Louis Vuitton 15 million KRW in damages."
From 2017 to 2021, Mr. A used fabric from Louis Vuitton bags provided by customers to produce bags and wallets of different sizes, shapes, and purposes. He charged production costs ranging from 100,000 to 700,000 KRW per reform product.
In response, Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit in February last year, claiming that Mr. A infringed on their trademark rights by undermining the source indication and quality assurance functions of their trademark.
According to Supreme Court precedents, using another person's registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods constitutes trademark infringement.
Mr. A argued that reform products do not qualify as "goods" under the Trademark Act. He claimed that to be considered goods, items must have "mass production," meaning repeated production of the same type of item, and "distribution," meaning exchange and distribution through multiple stages from producer to consumer, which reform products lack.
Furthermore, he argued that since the owner of the bag would not confuse the reform product with the original product made by Louis Vuitton, it cannot be considered "use of a trademark" under the Trademark Act.
However, the court ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton, stating, "Reform products also qualify as goods, and Mr. A must be regarded as having used Louis Vuitton's trademark."
The court emphasized that since reform products have exchange value and serve as independent objects of commercial transactions, they should be considered goods under the Trademark Act. It also pointed out that even if the products were not practically distributed and lacked mass production, the source indication function of the trademark must be protected.
The court further stated, "Although Mr. A's customers may not be mistaken about the origin of the reform products, third parties and general consumers who see the reform products are clearly likely to be confused about their origin," concluding, "Mr. A did use Louis Vuitton's trademark."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
