Authored By: Eliza Stewart-Jones
University of Leeds
Abstract
This article explores how trademark, copyright, and unfair competition rules internationally, namely the United Kingdom, United States, European Union, China and Korea, should accommodate sustainability imperatives. In particular, how the repair, reuse, and upcycling of luxury items impact trademark law, whilst taking care to not eroding core brand functions. The analysis synthesises international ‘exhaustion of rights’[1] under Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)[2], European Union regional exhaustion and the new ‘right to repair’[3] directive, the European Union’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and digital product passports, and United States/ United Kingdom first sale and passing off doctrines[4]. Case studies span Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) (United States), Hamilton v. Vortic (United States), Silhouette[5] and European Union Regulation on Trademark (EUTMR) Article 15 (European Union), AGA Rangemaster (United Kingdom), Hermès v. Maison R&C (France), and Louis Vuitton decisions in China and South Korea. The article concludes that a combination of disclosure-based remedies, quality control and key material difference exceptions can reconcile circularity with consumer protection centric intellectual property, while preventing post sale monopolies over authentication or repair.
Introduction
When referring to law within the fashion world, intellectual property has often dominated the sphere due to the significance of brands protecting their designs, materials, or other property[6]. In particular, for large fashion houses their product’s originality stands as their ‘main competitive advantage’[7]. Therefore, luxury fashion sits at the junction of the powerful, sometimes competing, forces within intellectual property, being that to legally protect these products whilst also taking into consideration circularity that valorises repair, reuse, and resale. The legal question is no longer as simple as whether brands may vindicate their marks against counterfeits, but it is how far rights travel after first sale, and what forms of alteration, refurbishment, or authentication remain lawful as consumers and regulators press for sustainability[8]. The two relevant doctrines explored within this article will be the ‘exhaustion of rights’ and ‘post-sale confusion’ doctrine. Ben Evans defines the exhaustion of rights principle ‘stating that once you have sold genuine goods, your rights over them are exhausted’[9]. In comparison, the ‘post-sale confusion’ doctrine established trademark infringement within law when the consumer is confused about the source of the product after the purchase has been made[10]. To understand both doctrines fully, this article will compare the implementation of rights after sales within different jurisdictions. This will thusly highlight the often conflicting, yet intertwined nature of the doctrines due to the large strain on the need to protect the brand owner’s trademarked items against the consumer’s right to use the product they have purchased, even by way of upcycling[11].
Legal Analysis
In the United States, the Lanham Act’s consumer protection tone has long channelled litigation toward likelihood of confusion and targeted exceptions for material differences and interference with quality control[12]. In contrast, in Europe, regional exhaustion under European Union law has historically limited after sale control[13], while the new Directive (EU) 2024/1799 on repair and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) push producers to enable repair, data transparency, and durability, with the European Union Digital Product Passport’s (DPP) poised to transform authenticity and traceability[14]. The United Kingdom sits arguably between the two, retaining the elements of post-sale control within the Trade Marks Act[15] whilst also deploying consumer protection structure against misleading green or affiliation claims.
Recent cases within the United States expose the pressure points between the two doctrines. Chanel’s 2024 American jury win against WGACA[16] illustrates how false advertising and counterfeiting theories can punish inefficient sourcing and overly confident authenticity claims without outlawing secondary markets[17]. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s Tiffany v. eBay preserved online marketspace by refusing to make platforms strict guarantors absent specific knowledge[18]. Meanwhile, courts across the globe are drawing lines around refurbishment and upcycling[19]. For example, the American court in Hamilton v. Vortic[20] upheld fully disclosed restorations, similarly in the United Kingdom, the case of AGA Rangemaster and Hermès v. Maison R&C[21] illustrates when transformation and marketing cross exhaustion’s limits and finally Louis Vuitton’s results in China and South Korea show divergent approaches to reconstructed goods and private refashioning[22]. This article builds a cross jurisdictional framework to harmonise sustainability with trademark’s core consumer protection function and proposes practical guardrails for brands, upcycles, and platforms.
Conceptual Framework
International law leaves each jurisdiction to design their exhaustion legislation. TRIPS Article 6 makes exhaustion off limits to World Trade Organisation dispute settlement; a viewpoint echoed in the Doha Declaration’s affirmation of flexibility[23]. European Union law chose regional exhaustion[24], with Silhouette v. Hartlauer outlining that member states cannot adopt international exhaustion for goods placed outside the European Economic Area (EEA)[25]. This codified law now appears in EUTMR Article 15, which denies brand control post the brand putting their item on the market within the EEA, subject to legitimate reasons, especially condition changes or impairment[26]. The United Kingdom mirrors this legal architecture[27] in section 12 Trade Marks Act 1994, following the legitimate reasons safety net[28], even as the United Kingdom courts and IPEC refine its position post-Brexit[29]. By contrast, the United States’ trademark exhaustion is judicial driven under first sale and tethered to the Lanham Act’s confusion paradigm, with Supreme Court guidance in Prestonettes and Champion Spark Plug emphasising truthful reference and durable disclosure.
Concurrently, policy instruments now embed circularity[30]. The European Union’s right to repair directive requires manufacturers to offer repairs for specified product classes, extends legal guarantees when repair is chosen, and launches a repair information form and platform[31]. Furthermore, the ESPR builds a horizontal framework for durability, reparability, and product level data, including the DPP[32]. Whereas France’s Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy (AGEC) law bans destruction of unsold non-food goods, mandates donation or recycling hierarchies, and uses repairability indexes to steer consumer choice[33]. These measures aim to normalise the reuse and repair tone while constraining wasteful practices, which is an agenda luxury has embraced in part through collaborative provenance rails like the Aura Blockchain Consortium, which seeks unit level authenticity and chain of custody transparency[34]. The consequence of this is the current legal terrain increasingly favours transparency, repair access, and truthful secondary markets, but still, to an extent, guards against confusion, quality control impairment, and misleading rebranding of materially altered goods.
Legal Analysis
Any synthesis must begin with trademark’s raison d’être preventing confusion and protecting source signalling and associated goodwill, not conferring control over goods after an authorised first sale[35]. In the United States, Sections 32 and 43(a) attack confusion, false designation, and false advertising[36]. Therefore, the legal remedies under §1117 calibrate equity rather than impose strict liability. Within this legal framework, arguably the first sale permits resale and accurate reference to marks, qualified by material difference and quality control exceptions that track actual consumer risk[37].
Within the United States, Prestonettes seemingly sets the disclosure norm within the United States, being that a reseller can repackage or rebottle so long as it tells the truth and avoids deception[38]. Within the case, Champion makes disclosure the remedy when used goods retain the original mark, the Supreme Court required robust, durable legends such as the usual ‘used’ or ‘repaired’ condition, rather than mark erasure[39]. These holdings generalise beyond their vintage facts to modern resale: truthful speech about genuine goods is protected speech unless it misleads[40].
Furthermore, Davidoff v. CVS illustrates a precise limit; by removing unit level codes designed for anti‑counterfeiting and recalls impairs legitimate quality control systems and renders goods non genuine[41]. Beltronics similarly treats serial number removal as materially different because it misleads buyers about eligibility for updates, assistance, or recall of said items[42]. Rolex v. Michel pushes further on alterations of an item. The substantial modifications with non-Rolex parts, coupled with retention of Rolex marks, was found to cross the line from transparent refurbishment[43]. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit directed injunctive relief barring mark retention on the altered watches showing there seems to be a line between material difference when considering quality control. Online, Tiffany v. eBay resists using deputising platforms as guarantors of authenticity. Generalised knowledge that some listings are counterfeit does not establish contributory liability absent specific knowledge and failure to act[44]. That calibrated allocation arguably allows resale to flourish without immunising bad actors[45].
In contrast, European Union law begins elsewhere, following a more positive law of exhaustion[46] approach but converges functionally on confusion avoidance, disclosure, and legitimate reasons. Silhouette made exhaustion regional and closed the door to international exhaustion in member law[47]. Article 15 EUTMR codifies the default, while recognising legitimate reasons to object, ‘especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired.’[48] The Court of Justice of the European Union’s medicinal repackaging line, most recently Merck v. Abacus, adds that reaffixing or replacing marks must not partition markets and must respect safety features; parallel importers can repackage under strict conditions that ultimately serve transparency and public health[49].
Today’s regulatory superstructure tightens the circularity screws. The European Union right to repair directive obliges manufacturers to repair common household products beyond warranty and to make parts, tools, and information available at reasonable cost, with a one-year guarantee extension where consumers choose repair[50]; it also sets up a cross-European Union repair legal platform. ESPR then extends Ecodesign beyond energy related goods and will roll out product specific durability, reparability, and DPP rules, with textiles prioritised[51]. These interventions do not rewrite trademark doctrine, but they change the factual predicates. When parts, instructions, and provenance data flow, independent repair and authentication more readily satisfy courts that consumers are not misled[52].
The United Kingdom mirrors doctrine could be argued as simply as mapping closely to the European Union’s exhaustion, but post‑Brexit judgments illustrate the legitimate reasons gateway entering into the English courts. AGA Rangemaster in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) held that retrofitting second-hand AGA cookers with an electronic control system did not per se negate exhaustion[53]. However, it is evident that marketing that implied an economic link defeated the defence as on appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the framework and emphasised that suggestions of commercial connection can reopen brand control[54]. That approach accommodates refurbishment markets while policing presentation.
Two continental cases from France and China mark the limits of upcycling where brand signifiers persist on the item. In Paris, Hermès v. Maison R&C condemned denim jackets adorned with fragments of Hermès scarves that still displayed “Hermès,” finding both copyright infringement in original scarf artwork and trademark infringement[55]. In this instance exhaustion failed because the works were transplanted into new media and the use of “Hermès” created association[56]. Similarly, in China, the Hangzhou court condemned the sale of upcycled bags reconstructed from deconstructed Louis Vuitton items where ‘LV’ monograms remained prominent[57], rejecting decorative use and exhaustion defences, damages and destruction followed[58]. Both opinions stress post sale perception and origin attributions by third parties. Thusly showing the importance of brand protection and originality against third parties who likely did not possess ill intention with their upcycling.
Yet arguably the needle has starting to point towards consumer autonomy[59]. In 2026, Korea’s Supreme Court held that refashioning customers’ Louis Vuitton bags for personal use did not constitute trademark use and thus was not infringement absent distribution; the Court distinguished commercial production of refashioned goods offered to the market[60]. That ruling carves a space for bespoke repair and transformation ordered by owners, while preserving brand remedies against market facing remanufacture. Against this landscape, the best reconciliation of sustainability and IP does not require brand exclusive post sale control over authentication or repair. Rather, it requires truthful, prominent disclosure, a respect for quality control identifiers, the avoidance of misleading retention of marks on materially altered goods, and shared provenance infrastructure. The European Union’s ESPR/DPP regime[61], France’s AGEC, and consortium solutions like Aura will lower information costs, and the American and English courts will continue to police deception and legitimate reasons without outlawing circularity.
Case Law Discussion
As previously inferred, Prestonettes v. Coty remains a key case when understanding the United States’ legal position on upcycling. Coty sought to stop a reseller that rebottled perfume and compacted powder from using Coty on labels. Justice Holmes rejected a broad veto, permitting truthful use so long as labels disclosed the reseller’s role and avoided deception[62]. The case articulates the principle that trademarks shield goodwill against passing off, not truthful information about genuine goods[63]. Moreover, Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders complements Prestonettes by specifying a disclosure remedy for refurbished goods[64]. This legal template supports circular practices by targeting deception rather than asserting a post-sale veto over owners’ use of genuine goods. It also informs ‘platform liability[65] such as seen in Tiffany v. eBay, where the Second Circuit refused to make intermediaries strict guarantors absent, preserving lawful resale while enabling targeted enforcement. Furthermore, recent reporting on Chanel v. WGACA conveys how these principles discipline overconfident authenticity claims and weak sourcing without outlawing resale; practitioner and trade coverage emphasises accurate disclosures, defensible provenance, and the avoidance of false association[66].
Critical Analysis
The international fashion market operates against an international patchwork’ of IP laws and uneven enforcement, which sustains counterfeiting routes and complicates consumer protection[67]. Scholars who specialise within the ethics side of the legal sector note that some jurisdictions make copying feasible with minimal legal risk[68]. Alongside jurisdiction differences, fast fashion’s speed to mass produce trending items puts pressures on the intellectual property world as it can suppress originality and propel status signalling over expressive authorship[69] whilst leaving small designers exposed, lacking the counsel and reputation[70]. Moreover, when balancing commercial needs against repair, reuse, and upcycling, arguably Western IP concepts dominate[71]. Therefore, when exploring the strengths or weaknesses of either the ‘exhaustion of rights’ or ‘post sale confusion’ doctrines, it is arguably too shortsighted to separate the two by favouring one over the other. For example, nuance exists due to cultural differences, such as China’s historical tolerance for imitation shows how moral intuitions about copying differ across cultures[72] . Within the European Union, Post TRIPS treaty making indicates a partial rebalance toward non‑infringing uses and vulnerable groups, suggesting space for future doctrinal accommodation of circularity and access.
Thusly, from exploring how trademark, copyright, and unfair competition rules across the globe impact repair, reuse, and upcycling of luxury items, three findings emerge. First, the most durable rule of decision remains confusion centric and disclosure forward[73]. Prestonettes and Champion’s century old logic meshes with Hamilton v. Vortic’s modern restoration context[74] and with the European Union / United Kingdom both mirroring exhaustion’s legitimate reasons[75] escape hatch truthful, conspicuous disclosure protects consumers and permits circulatory practices; rights spring back only when quality control systems are impaired, material differences mislead, or presentation suggests endorsement.
Second, the principal frictions arise not from repair per se but from upcycling and presentation. When a product is materially reengineered and the original mark remains the dominant signal, courts trend toward finding infringement or legitimate reasons to object, particularly where post sale observers may attribute origin to the brand. The Paris Hermès ruling and Hangzhou LV decision exemplify this, while AGA underscores that even permissible conversions can be marketed unlawfully if they imply affiliation. One can thus square circularity with brand protection by requiring removal or neutralisation of dominant brand signifiers on materially altered goods, paired with independent branding and robust disclaimers.
Third, provenance infrastructure changes the risk logic. The ESPR’s DPP’s, allied to private rails like Aura, promises unit level authenticity, service histories, and sustainability claims that are auditable, thereby reducing reliance on hand wrought visual cues and subjective expertise. As repair rights expand under Directive (EU) 2024/1799 and AGEC bans destruction of unsold goods, independently verified data should make courts more comfortable with non-brand authentication and with independent repair that honours quality control identifiers[76]. The United States and United Kingdom can incorporate this trajectory without statutory overhaul by reading first sale, material difference, and legitimate reasons through the lens of improved information quality.
The most convincing approach that reconciles sustainability with trademark’s consumer protection core is disclosure‑centred and quality control respecting. In short, sustainability goals align with trademark’s consumer protection core when circular practices are transparent, traceable, and non-deceptive. The doctrinal architecture we already have first sale and exhaustion, disclosure remedies, and targeted exceptions and works, provided courts resist brand exclusive post sale rights over authentication or repair and insist instead on verifiable process standards and candid marketing. Thusly, this perspective that reconciles sustainability with trademark’s consumer protection core is disclosure‑centred and quality control respecting. permit a brand veto over circularity[77].
Conclusion
Trademark and related IP can accommodate sustainability’s triad, repair, reuse, upcycling without sacrificing source signalling if the law continues to hew to confusion avoidance and disclosure. Under the United States. first sale and the European Union/ United Kingdom exhaustion, resale and repair are lawful by default; targeted exceptions address quality control impairment, material differences, and misleading presentation. Codified European Union measures the right to repair directive and ESPR with DPP shift markets toward repairability and traceability, while national rules like France’s AGEC ban destruction of unsold goods. Private collaborations such as the Aura Blockchain Consortium reinforce provenance, supporting non brand authentication and circular commerce. Courts should therefore prefer disclosure and data backed transparency over brand monopolies on post sale enforcement. Up cyclers must avoid dominant retention of brand identifiers on materially altered goods and provide conspicuous disclaimers; platforms should maintain robust notice and takedown procedures under Tiffany v. eBay; brands should protect quality control systems but refrain from claiming a veto over independent authentication. The balance struck by Prestonettes, Champion, Davidoff, Silhouette/EUTMR Article 15, AGA Rangemaster, Hermès v. Maison R&C, and Louis Vuitton’s China/Korea outcomes offers a workable path by which circularity and consumer trust can grow together.
Bibliography
Table of Cases
UNITED KINGDOM
AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC)
AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1622
Hermès International v SAS Maison R&C Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris 10 April 2025, RG 21/05031 (French case, listed here by party name)
EUROPEAN UNION
Case C‑204/20 Merck Sharp & Dohme BV v Abacus Medicine A/S ECLI:EU:C: 2022:892
Case C‑355/96 Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1998] ECR I‑4799
UNITED STATES
Beltronics USA Inc v Midwest Inventory Distribution LLC 562 F 3d 1067 (10th Cir 2009)
Chanel, Inc v What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC 18 Civ 2253 (SDNY 2024)
Davidoff & CIE, SA v CVS Corp 232 F 3d 43 (2d Cir 2000)
Hamilton International Ltd v Vortic LLC 13 F 4th 264 (2d Cir 2021)
Prestonettes, Inc v Coty 264 US 359 (1924)
Rolex Watch, USA, Inc v Michel Co 179 F 3d 704 (9th Cir 1999)
Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc 600 F 3d 93 (2d Cir 2010)
CHINA
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Shenzhen Bangtu Cultural Media Co, Ltd Zhejiang Provincial High People’s Court 21 May 2025, (2024) Zhe Min Zhong No 1025
SOUTH KOREA
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Lee Kyung-han [2026] SCKR 2024DaXXXX
Louis Vuitton Malletier v A Supreme Court of Korea 12 February 2026, 2024Da291845
Table of Legislation
UNITED KINGDOM
Trade Marks Act 1994
EUROPEAN UNION
Directive (EU) 2024/1799 on common rules promoting the repair of goods [2024] OJ L1799
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trade Mark [2017] OJ L154/1
Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products [2024]
OJ L2024/1781
FRANCE
Law No 2020‑105 of 10 February 2020 on the Fight Against Waste and the Circular Economy (AGEC Law)
INTERNATIONAL
Agreement on Trade‑Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (opened for signature 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299
References
Atilla-Aydın S, ‘Is Unauthorised Fashion Upcycling Lawful? Not According to French First Instance Court’ (The IPKat, 1 July 2025) <https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/07/is-unauthorised-fashion-upcycling.html> accessed 3 March 2026
Brancusi L, ‘Not-so-great expectations of the EU Directive 2024/1799 promoting repair and its nexus with IP protection’ (2025) 20(10) J Intell Prop L & Practice 645
Brewer M, ‘Fashion Law: More than Wigs, Gowns, and Intellectual Property’ (2017) 54 San Diego L Rev 739
Brittain B, ‘Vortic Watches with Antique Hamilton Parts Don’t Infringe Trademarks’ Reuters (14 September 2021) <https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/vortic-watches-with-antique-hamilton-parts-dont-infringe-trademarks-2021-09-14/> accessed 3 March 2025
Cachon GP and Swinney R, ‘The Value of Fast Fashion: Quick Response, Enhanced Design, and Strategic Consumer Behaviour’ (2011) 57 Mgmt Sci 778
Calboli I and Ginsburg JC (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law (CUP 2020)
Council of the European Union, ‘Circular Economy: Council Gives Final Approval to Right-to-Repair Directive’ (Press Release 319/24, 30 May 2024) <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/30/circular-economy-council-gives-final-approval-to-right-to-repair-directive/> accessed 6 March 2026
DLA Piper, ‘Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation: The future of sustainable products in the EU’ (Lexology, 24 May 2024) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9834e0a-dc35-483f-9163-2b184adf59c9> accessed 5 March 2026
Evans B, ‘Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights’ (Harper James, 26 June 2024) <https://harperjames.co.uk/article/exhaustion-of-intellectual-property-rights/> accessed 5 March 2026
European Commission, ‘Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation’ <https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy/ecodesign-sustainable-products-regulation_en> accessed 6 March 2026
Grynberg M, ‘Trademark Litigation as Consumer Conflict’ (2008) 83 NYU L Rev 60
Hilty RM, ‘Legal Concept of “Exhaustion”: Exhausted?’ in Hanns Ullrich and others (eds), Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2020)
Hilton B and others, ‘The Ethics of Counterfeiting in the Fashion Industry: Quality, Credence, and Profit Issues’ (2004) 55 J Bus Ethics 345
JoongAng Daily (Kim J-hye), ‘Top Court Rules That Altering Luxury Goods for Personal Use Does Not Violate Trademark Law in Historic Case’ (26 February 2026) <https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com> accessed 5 March 2026
Joy A and others, ‘Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands’ (2012) 16 Fashion Theory 273
Kelley Drye, ‘What Comes Around… How Chanel’s Win May Help Brands Protect their Rights in the Resale Market’ (15 February 2024)
Kering, ‘Vestiaire Collective announces a new €178m financing round backed by Kering and Tiger Global’ (1 March 2021) <https://www.kering.com/en/news/vestiaire-collective-announces-a-new-eu-178m-us-216m-financing-round-backed-by-kering-and-tiger-global-management-to-accelerate-its-growth-in-the-second-hand-market-and-drive-change-for-a-more-sustainable-fashion-industry/> accessed 5 March 2026
Lim D, ‘Trademark Confusion Simplified: A New Framework for Multifactor Tests’ (2022) 37(2) Berkeley Tech LJ 867
Miles S, ‘United Kingdom’ in Fabrizio Jacobacci and Alan Behr (eds), Law Over Borders: Luxury Law (3rd edn, The Global Legal Post 2024) <https://www.globallegalpost.com/lawoverborders/luxury-law-guide-2025919870/united-kingdom-298584150> accessed 5 March 2026
Price S, ‘The Electrifying Saga Continues: Court of Appeal Decision in AGA Rangemaster v UK Innovations Group’ (Lewis Silkin, 5 January 2026) <https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2026/01/05/the-electrifying-saga-continues-court-of-appeal-decision-in-aga-rangemaster-v-uk-102lz8d> accessed 1 March 2026
Prada Group, ‘Prada Group, together with LVMH and Cartier, founds Aura Blockchain Consortium’ (20 April 2021) <https://www.pradagroup.com/en/news-media/news-section/aura-blockchain-consortium.html> accessed 5 March 2026
RealReal, ‘The RealReal and Gucci Launch Circular Economy Partnership’ (Press Release, 5 October 2020) <https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/the-realreal-and-gucci-launch-circular-economy-partnership-2020-10-05> accessed 5 March 2026
Senftleben M, ‘Developing Defences for Fashion Upcycling in EU Trademark Law’ (2024) 73 GRUR Int 99
Tokatli N, ‘Global Sourcing: Insights from the Global Clothing Industry—The Case of Zara, a Fast Fashion Retailer’ (2007) 8 J Econ Geography 21
UNCTAD–ICTSD, ‘Exhaustion of Rights’ in Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (CUP 2005)
Wade ME, ‘The Sartorial Dilemma of Knockoffs: Protecting Moral Rights Without Disturbing the Fashion Dynamic’ (2011) 96 Minn L Rev 336
Welkowitz DS, ‘Privatizing Human Rights? Creating Intellectual Property Rights from Human Rights Principles’ (2013) 46 Akron L Rev 675
Wong T, ‘To Copy or Not to Copy, That Is the Question: The Game Theory Approach to Protecting Fashion Designs’ (2012) 160 U Pa L Rev 1139
Yu PK, ‘Piracy, Prejudice, and Perspectives: An Attempt to Use Shakespeare to Reconfigure the US–China Intellectual Property Debate’ (2001) 19 BU Intl LJ 1
[1] Ben Evans, ‘Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights’ (Harper James, 26 June 2024) https://harperjames.co.uk/article/exhaustion-of-intellectual-property-rights/ accessed 5 March 2026.
[2] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (opened for signature 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299.
[3] Directive (EU) 2024/1799 on Common rules promoting the repair of goods [2024] OJ L 2024/1799.
[4] ibid.
[5] Case C-355/96 Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1998] ECR I-04799.
[6] BREWER, Mark (2017). Fashion Law: More than Wigs, Gowns, and Intellectual Property. San Diego Law Review, 54 (4), 3.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Beltronics USA Inc v Midwest Inventory Distribution LLC 562 F 3d 1067 (10th Cir 2009).
[9] Evans (n 1).
[10] Ilanah Fhima, ‘post-sale confusion: a doctrine in development’ (2025) 20(4) JIPLP 265.
[11] Martin Senftleben, ‘Developing Defences for Fashion Upcycling in EU Trademark Law’ (2024) 73 GRUR Int 99.
[12] Michael Grynberg, ‘Trademark Litigation as Consumer Conflict’ (2008) 83 NYU L Rev 60.
[13] Lavinia Brancusi, ‘Not-so-great expectations of the EU Directive 2024/1799 promoting repair and its nexus with IP protection’ (2025) 20(10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 645.
[14] Directive (EU) 2024/1799 (n 3).
[15] Trade Marks Act 1994.
[16] Chanel, Inc v What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC 18 Civ 2253 (SDNY 2024).
[17] Kelley Drye, ‘What Comes Around… How Chanel’s Win May Help Brands Protect their Rights in the Resale Market’ (15 February 2024).
[18] Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc, 600 F 3d 93 (2d Cir 2010).
[19] Söğüt Atilla-Aydın, ‘Is Unauthorised Fashion Upcycling Lawful? Not According to French First Instance Court’ (The IPKat, 1 July 2025) https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/07/is-unauthorised-fashion-upcycling.html accessed 3 March 2026.
[20] Hamilton International Ltd v Vortic LLC, 13 F 4th 264 (2d Cir 2021).
[21] AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1622.
[22] Louis Vuitton Malletier v Lee Kyung-han [2026] SCKR 2024DaXXXX.
[23] UNCTAD-ICTSD, ‘Exhaustion of Rights’ in Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (Cambridge University Press 2005) 92.
[24] Simon Miles, ‘United Kingdom’ in Fabrizio Jacobacci and Alan Behr (eds), Law Over Borders: Luxury Law (3rd edn, The Global Legal Post 2024) https://www.globallegalpost.com/lawoverborders/luxury-law-guide-2025919870/united-kingdom-298584150 accessed 5 March 2026.
, ‘United Kingdom’ in Fabrizio Jacobacci and Alan Behr (eds), Law Over Borders: Luxury Law (3rd edn, The Global Legal Post 2024) https://www.globallegalpost.com/lawoverborders/luxury-law-guide-2025919870/united-kingdom-298584150 accessed 5 March 2026.
[25] Silhouette (n 5).
[26] Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trademark (codification) [2017] OJ L154/1.
[27] Miles (n 24).
[28] Trade Marks Act 1994, s 12.
[29] Tedmond Wong, ‘To Copy or Not to Copy, That Is the Question: The Game Theory Approach to Protecting Fashion Designs’ (2012) 160 U Pa L Rev 1139, 1148–52.
[30] The RealReal, ‘The RealReal and Gucci Launch Circular Economy Partnership’ (Press Release, 5 October 2020) https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/the-realreal-and-gucci-launch-circular-economy-partnership-2020-10-05 accessed 5 March 2026
[31] Council of the European Union, ‘Circular economy: Council gives final approval to right to repair directive’ (Press Release, 30 May 2024) www.consilium.europa.eu accessed 1 March 2026.
[32] Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Sustainable Products, Amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and Repealing Directive 2009/125/EC [2024] OJ L 2024/1781.
[33] Law No 2020-105 of 10 February 2020 on the Fight Against Waste and the Circular Economy (AGEC Law).
[34] Aura Blockchain Consortium, ‘Press Release: LVMH, Prada Group and Cartier come together to form the Aura Blockchain Consortium’ (20 April 2021) https://auraluxuryblockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-04-20_Aura_Blockchain_Consortium.pdf accessed 5 March 2026
[35] Irene Calboli and Jane C. Ginsburg (eds), ‘Part Two – Comparative Perspectives on Trademark Protection: Convergence and (Remaining) Divergence’ in The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law (Cambridge University Press 2020).
[36] Lanham Act 15 USC §§ 1114, 1125(a), 1117.
[37] Prada Group, ‘Prada Group, together with LVMH and Cartier, founds Aura Blockchain Consortium’ (20 April 2021) https://www.pradagroup.com/en/news-media/news-section/aura-blockchain-consortium.html accessed 5 March 2026.
[38] Prestonettes, Inc v Coty 264 US 359 (1924).
[39] William McGeveran and Mark P McKenna, ‘Confusion Isn’t Everything’ (2014) 89 Notre Dame L Rev 253.
[40] Prestonettes (n 38).
[41] Davidoff & CIE, SA v CVS Corp 232 F 3d 43 (2d Cir 2000).
[42] Beltronics USA, Inc v Midwest Inventory Distribution, LLC 562 F 3d 1067 (10th Cir 2009).
[43] Rolex Watch, USA, Inc v Michel Co 179 F 3d 704 (9th Cir 1999).
[44] Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc 600 F 3d 93 (2d Cir 2010).
[45] Tiffany v. eBay is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, ‘The Second Circuit’s Decision in Tiffany v. eBay’ (1 April 2010) <https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/the-second-circuit-s-decision-in-tiffany-v-ebay.html> accessed 1 March 2026.
[46] Reto M Hilty, ‘Legal Concept of “Exhaustion”: Exhausted?’ in Hanns Ullrich and others (eds), Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2020) 22.
[47] Silhouette (n 5).
[48] Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trademark [2017] OJ L154/1, Art 15.
[49] Case C-204/20 Merck Sharp & Dohme BV v Abacus Medicine A/S ECLI:EU:C: 2022:892.
[50] Directive (EU) 2024/1799 (n 3).
[51] Council of the European Union, ‘Circular Economy: Council Gives Final Approval to Right-to-Repair Directive’ (Press Release 319/24, 30 May 2024) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/30/circular-economy-council-gives-final-approval-to-right-to-repair-directive/ accessed 6 March 2026.
[52] European Commission, ‘Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation’ https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy/ecodesign-sustainable-products-regulation_en accessed 6 March 2026.
[53] AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd (n 21).
[54] S Price, ‘The Electrifying Saga Continues: Court of Appeal Decision in AGA Rangemaster v UK Innovations Group’ (Lewis Silkin, 5 January 2026) https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2026/01/05/the-electrifying-saga-continues-court-of-appeal-decision-in-aga-rangemaster-v-uk-102lz8d accessed 1 March 2026.
[55] Hermès International v SAS Maison R&C Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris 10 April 2025, RG 21/05031.
[56] DLA Piper, ‘Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation: The future of sustainable products in the EU’ (Lexology, 24 May 2024) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9834e0a-dc35-483f-9163-2b184adf59c9 accessed 5 March 2026.
[57] The Fashion Law article is: ‘Louis Vuitton Scores Win in China Over Upcycled Luxury Bags’ (The Fashion Law, 24 June 2025).
[58] Louis Vuitton Malletier v Shenzhen Bangtu Cultural Media Co, Ltd Zhejiang Provincial High People’s Court 21 May 2025, (2024) Zhe Min Zhong No 1025.
[59] Kim Ji-hye, ‘Top Court Rules That Altering Luxury Goods for Personal Use Does Not Violate Trademark Law in Historic Case’ (Korea JoongAng Daily, 26 February 2026) koreajoongangdaily.joins.com accessed 5 March 2026.
[60] Louis Vuitton Malletier v A Supreme Court of Korea 12 February 2026, 2024, Da 291845.
[61] Kering, ‘Vestiaire Collective announces a new €178m financing round backed by Kering and Tiger Global’ (1 March 2021) https://www.kering.com/en/news/vestiaire-collective-announces-a-new-eu-178m-us-216m-financing-round-backed-by-kering-and-tiger-global-management-to-accelerate-its-growth-in-the-second-hand-market-and-drive-change-for-a-more-sustainable-fashion-industry/ accessed 5 March 2026.
[62] Prestonettes, Inc v Coty 264 US 359, 368 (1924).
[63] Prestonettes, Inc v Coty 264 US 359, 264 (1924).
[64] Champion Spark Plug Co v Sanders 331 US 125 (1947).
[65] Tiffany (NJ) Inc v eBay Inc, 600 F 3d 93 (2d Cir 2010).
[66] Kelley Drye, ‘What Comes Around… How Chanel’s Win May Help Brands Protect their Rights in the Resale Market’ (15 February 2024).
[67] BREWER (n 6) 739-784.
[68] Brian Hilton and others, ‘The Ethics of Counterfeiting in the Fashion Industry: Quality, Credence, and Profit Issues’ (2004) 55 J Bus Ethics 345, 345.
[69] Gérard P Cachon and Robert Swinney, ‘The Value of Fast Fashion: Quick Response, Enhanced Design, and Strategic Consumer Behaviour’ (2011) 57 Mgmt Sci 778, 778.
[70] Margaret E Wade, ‘The Sartorial Dilemma of Knockoffs: Protecting Moral Rights Without Disturbing the Fashion Dynamic’ (2011) 96 Minn L Rev 336, 340.
[71] David S Welkowitz, ‘Privatizing Human Rights? Creating Intellectual Property Rights from Human Rights Principles’ (2013) 46 Akron L Rev 675, 717–21.
[72] Peter K Yu, ‘Piracy, Prejudice, and Perspectives: An Attempt to Use Shakespeare to Reconfigure the U.S.–China Intellectual Property Debate’ (2001) 19 BU Intl LJ 1, 17.
[73] Daryl Lim, ‘Trademark Confusion Simplified: A New Framework for Multifactor Tests’ (2022) 37(2) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 867.
[74] Blake Brittain, ‘Vortic Watches with Antique Hamilton Parts Don’t Infringe Trademarks’ Reuters (14 September 2021) https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/vortic-watches-with-antique-hamilton-parts-dont-infringe-trademarks-2021-09-14/ accessed 3 March 2025.
[75] Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (n 48).
[76] Aura Blockchain Consortium, ‘LVMH, Prada Group and Richemont Join Forces in Aura Blockchain Consortium’ (20 April 2021) https://auraluxuryblockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-04-20_Aura_Blockchain_Consortium.pdf accessed 6 March 2025.
[77] Kelley Drye, ‘What Comes Around… How Chanel’s Win May Help Brands Protect their Rights in the Resale Market’ (15 February 2024).
