Authored By: Manya Gupta
Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Management and Research
Abstract
Sustainable fashion has revolutionized the apparel market and sparked intellectual property rights disputes worldwide. One form of sustainable fashion that has come to prominence is luxury fashion upcycling, which involves converting pre-owned or discarded branded goods into innovative and valuable products. Whereas upcyclers view this process as a manifestation of their creativity, environmental concern and active participation in remix culture, luxury brands consider upcycling an unauthorized abuse of trademarks that can harm their distinctive brand identity and value proposition. As a result, judicial systems around the world are increasingly required to ascertain whether upcycled luxury goods amount to artistic and entrepreneurial activity or violate trademark laws through dilution, confusion and unjust use.
This paper seeks to explore the conflict between remix culture and trademark protection in the case of upcycled luxury fashion. It will discuss the concept of remix culture, the rise of circular fashion economies and the conflict between sustainability aims and established notions of trademark law. Particular focus will be laid on the trademark dilution vs. the first sale doctrine conflict, considering that alteration of authentic goods raises issues under the exhaustion doctrine. The article analyses leading cases from the United States, Europe, and Asia, including disputes involving Chanel, Louis Vuitton, and Rolex, and evaluates judicial approaches toward transformed branded goods.
The article explains that strong protection of trademarks can harm sustainability objectives as well as creative freedom, especially when there is no danger of confusion among consumers about the source of the new items produced by modifying the trademarks. By analyzing comparative law and policies, the paper suggests an approach that balances trademark interests with sustainability in India.
Keywords: Remix Culture, Upcycling, Trademark Dilution, Luxury Fashion, First Sale Doctrine, Sustainability, Circular Economy, Trademark Law, India, Intellectual Property.
I. Introduction
In the twenty-first century, there has been remarkable synergy between sustainability, consumer innovation, and intellectual property law. One of the best-known instances of such synergy is the rise of luxury fashion upcycling. Upcycling means converting pre-existing items into valuable new products without breaking them down to their basic components.[1] While conventional recycling can be a process that entails the destruction of materials, upcycling is aimed at improving the quality of the original product while simultaneously designing a new product that adds value from both an economic and artistic perspective.
The idea of luxury fashion upcycling has grown in popularity over time due to the fact that it manages to solve two problems in the current world: environmental sustainability and the need for uniqueness among consumers. On the one hand, people have been shunning mass-produced clothing products due to their lack of uniqueness.
The fashion industry is one of the most ecologically demanding industries in the world.[2] This can be attributed to extensive production processes, overconsumption, and the relatively short lives of products. The concept of sustainable fashion, as such, focuses on fixing, reusing, selling, and upcycling old items as opposed to manufacturing new clothes. Upcycling stands out as a popular choice in that it prolongs product life cycles and encourages innovation.[3]
This phenomenon reflects what scholars describe as remix culture. Popularised by Lawrence Lessig in his seminal work Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, remix culture refers to a participatory environment in which individuals creatively modify, reinterpret, and repurpose existing cultural materials to produce new works.[4] Lessig distinguished between “read-only” (RO) culture, in which audiences passively consume content, and “read/write” (RW) culture, in which participants actively build upon shared cultural materials.[5] Fashion upcycling represents a physical manifestation of this participatory phenomenon.
But luxury brands take a different view on this matter. Luxury trademarks mean more than just the identification of the source; they reflect prestige, reputation, exclusivity, and significant investment in branding. The companies fear that unauthorized changes could affect the image of their brand and cause confusion among consumers, destroying their aura of exclusivity.
Thus, there arise some hard questions that courts need to address. Does buying an item of luxury give one the right to remix it and sell it afterwards? Are substantial changes to branded products allowable in cases of trademark exhaustion? Can luxury brands prevent their upcycling based on trademark dilution? Do sustainability and freedom of expression play any role in enforcing trademarks? These questions lie at the heart of the contemporary conflict between remix culture and trademark law.
II. Remix Culture and the Rise of Upcycled Luxury Fashion
The concept of remix culture questions the established ideas of ownership, creativity, and authorship. Traditionally, IP laws have been created based on a system where producers create their original content and customers purchase it. Participatory culture in modern times breaks this system by blurring the line between the producer and customer.
In today’s world, consumers of products start engaging with the product in terms of creation and not just consumption. In the domain of fashion, this has led to the process of customization, remixing, upcycling, and redesign of the products.
Several factors explain the rise of luxury fashion upcycling:
Environmental Sustainability
Fashion waste has become a global crisis. Millions of tons of clothing are discarded annually, often ending up in landfills.[6] Upcycling reduces waste and extends product lifespans, directly contributing to a more circular fashion economy.
Principles of Circular Economy
A circular economy entails the attempt to shift from the usual “take-make-dispose” cycle to models where reuse, repair, and regeneration dominate. Upcycling perfectly fits this description.
The Desire for Uniqueness Among Consumers
Paradoxically, luxury goods create their own uniqueness despite being mass-produced. Through upcycling, buyers can get a truly unique product of luxury that is not available in regular stores. This is especially true for a vintage Hermès scarf after a makeover or a Gucci belt bag after upcycling.
Artistic Expression
The majority of upcyclers consider themselves artists who transform goods rather than simply reselling them. New meanings and aesthetics come out of the arrangement of used objects into something new. Increasingly, U.S. and European courts have acknowledged that such transformations raise expressive issues that go beyond the norms of normal commerce.
Role of Digital Media
The likes of Instagram, TikTok, and Pinterest have turned fashion remixes into standard practices through which consumers get involved in creative activities.
However, luxury brands have been reluctant to embrace consumer creativity because of the strong association of their brands with quality and prestige. The dilemma that arises from that situation is central to the issue of trademark dilution discussed in this article.
III. Trademark Dilution vs the First Sale Doctrine
The main legal problem related to upcycled luxury fashion lies in the collision of two concepts – trademark dilution protection and the first sale doctrine.
What is Trademark Dilution?
The concept of trademark dilution is a relatively new phenomenon, and it does not necessarily involve any sort of consumer confusion about the origin of the product that bears the mark. Generally speaking, trademark dilution may be distinguished into two kinds.
Dilution by Blurring
Blurring affects the distinctiveness of the trademark as it associates the trademark with different goods. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 provides that blurring of trademarks is protected by US law; the act mentions some factors used in determining whether the trademark was diluted or not. Among such factors are the degree of similarity of the trademark and allegedly blurring trademark, the distinctiveness of the mark itself and its recognition.
Dilution by Tarnishment
Tarnishment happens when a well-known mark becomes linked with low-quality, indecent or unsuitable products, hence resulting in brand image impairment. Upcycling cases are common with luxury goods brands since proving confusion might be hard in such cases, since the products in question will have disclaimers.
The First Sale Doctrine
The first sale doctrine is synonymous with trademark exhaustion. Under trademark exhaustion, a trademark holder cannot control any further once the authorised sale is made. Ownership automatically goes to the buyer after the trademark holder has made the authorised sale.
The doctrine facilitates secondary markets, promotes competition, protects consumer property rights, and prevents perpetual trademark control. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the exhaustion principle in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,[7] reflecting the broader legal consensus that intellectual property rights cannot extend indefinitely into secondary markets.
Why Upcycling Creates Legal Difficulties
The challenge emerges because upcycled products are neither entirely original nor entirely unchanged. Consider the facts that gave rise to Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc:[8] Sandra Ling acquired real Louis Vuitton products, dismantled them, and used the material featuring the famous ‘LV’ logo to design a new line of clothes and accessories. Even though the newly created goods featured the famous trademark, they were considerably different from their original versions. Courts have to decide if such a transformation goes beyond the scope of the first sale doctrine.
The Material Difference Test
The “material difference test” is utilised by many jurisdictions. When modifications made to the product are significant enough, the court could consider the end result as not being the actual product exhausted under the doctrine anymore. Such considerations are made taking into account various factors, which are physical alterations, changes in quality, functionality, expectations of consumers, and the effect on brand reputation.
IV. Case Analysis: A Comparative Perspective
Chanel Inc v Shiver + Duke LLC
One of the most significant upcycling disputes arose in Chanel Inc v Shiver and Duke LLC.[9] Shiver + Duke is a company located in Atlanta that bought original Chanel buttons meant to be worn on Chanel clothing and turned them into chains, earrings, and bracelets. Chanel brought the case in February 2021 against the defendants based on claims of infringement of a trademark, unfair competition, and trademark dilution based on the fact that the mark used in the defendants’ jewellery was Chanel’s CC Monogram, and the interest in the defendants’ jewellery originated due to Chanel’s trademarked brand.
Chanel claimed that: the refurbished buttons were not bought straight from or authenticated by Chanel; the intended purpose of the buttons was for clothing and not jewellery; and that the resulting jewellery appeared similar to Chanel’s jewellery, thus causing a likelihood of confusion between the brands. Chanel also pointed out that using the trademarked buttons was a new use, hence ineligible for the first sale doctrine protection.[10]
Despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter, Shiver + Duke made only superficial changes, adding the words “reimagined” and “reworked” to their products and packaging without clearly disclaiming affiliation with Chanel. The Southern District of New York denied the motion to dismiss. The parties ultimately reached a confidential settlement in 2022, and the court entered a stipulated judgment permanently enjoining Shiver + Duke from refashioning Chanel buttons bearing the CC monogram.[11] The case illustrates the limited protection that superficial disclaimers provide and the increasing willingness of luxury brands to challenge upcycling practices even where authentic materials form the basis of transformed products.
Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc
In Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc,[12] Louis Vuitton filed suit against a small business that deconstructed authentic Louis Vuitton goods to create new apparel, handbags, and accessories, sometimes adding beading and stones while retaining the visible LV monogram. Louis Vuitton argued that material alteration created a risk of both point-of-sale and post-sale consumer confusion, and that retention of the ‘LV’ mark enabled Sandra Ling Designs to trade on Louis Vuitton’s established reputation.
The defendant invoked the first sale doctrine, arguing that each upcycled product included disclaimers of affiliation with Louis Vuitton. A settlement was reached under which, while no liability or damages were admitted, the defendants agreed to a permanent injunction and payment of USD 603,000.[13] The significant financial settlement sent a strong signal to the upcycling industry about the risks of commercial transformation of luxury branded goods, notwithstanding the use of authentic source materials.
Rolex Watch Cases
In numerous instances, Rolex has taken action against businesses that personalise or extensively customise genuine Rolex watches. In America, there has been an established distinction made between basic repair and extensive customisation. Cases in which extensive customisation has greatly affected the visual appeal and performance of watches, such as replacing a Rolex dial with a personalised one, have led to a determination by many courts that the modified watches are no longer authentic Rolex products. This is because consumers expect quality assurances from the Rolex brand name, which is ensured only by Rolex itself.
The Korea Supreme Court Ruling (2026)
A significant development emerged in February 2026 when the Supreme Court of Korea issued a landmark ruling pitting Louis Vuitton against a Seoul-based repair artisan.[14] Between 2017 and 2021, the artisan had disassembled customers’ genuine Louis Vuitton bags and refashioned them into smaller bags and wallets at the specific request of their owners, charging between 100,000 and 700,000 Korean Won per item. Louis Vuitton filed suit in 2022 alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Both the Seoul Central District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court sided with Louis Vuitton, holding that the refashioned items constituted “new goods” capable of misleading third parties. The Supreme Court overturned those decisions. The court held that where a service provider modifies a product at the specific request of its owner solely for that owner’s personal use — and the refashioned product is not placed into commercial circulation — such activity does not constitute “use of a trademark” under Korean trademark law.[15]
Notably, it was made the responsibility of the defendant to prove that there were “special circumstances” that would make the intervention of the trademark holder necessary. The court appreciated the growing public concern about recycling and environmental concerns, emphasising the increased attention from courts on such matters in leading jurisdictions around the world, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. The decision was celebrated by consumer protection groups as a landmark recognition of the right to repair.
European Union Approach
According to European trademark law, which is mainly regulated by the EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001), trademarks enjoy considerable protection while at the same time accepting the concepts of exhaustion. Article 15 of the regulation holds that trademarks shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit their use in relation to goods that have already been put into the economic market area under that trademark and by the proprietor or with the proprietor’s authorisation, unless there were legitimate grounds for preventing further commercialisation of such goods, particularly when their state had been adversely affected.
According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, exhaustion cannot be applied where goods undergo substantial changes after their purchase. Scholars in Europe argue that there is a need to provide stronger protection for sustainable fashion upcycling based on environmental concerns. The European Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan of the EU are major policy statements on resource efficiency and circular consumption. It has been stated that there should be consistency between the application of trademarks and these goals.
Comparative Observations
The comparative analysis of approaches adopted in the US, Europe, and Asia shows certain trends. In the US, consumer confusion is prioritised, and the theory of material alteration is applied. In Europe, greater focus is made on the concept of trademark reputation and its dilution, while sustainability concerns are becoming increasingly important from a policy perspective. Lastly, in Korea, the decision made by the Supreme Court in 2026 suggests another trend: the differentiation between modification carried out personally for the trademark owner and commercial exploitation independently.
V. Trademark Dilution in the Context of Remix Culture
The trademark dilution doctrine was developed to protect famous brands from the gradual erosion of distinctiveness. However, applying dilution principles to upcycling raises several concerns.
Overexpansion of Trademark Rights
Broad dilution theories are said to convert trademarks from source indicators into perpetual proprietary rights. Consumers will, in effect, lose any significant proprietary right in the product following its purchase. In the event that every use in an altered form is a violation of the trademark owner’s rights, there would be no significant proprietary right left in the purchase of a legally acquired luxury item.
Chilling Creative Expression
The luxury trademark has evolved to become a cultural symbol that means much more than just an indicator of the goods’ source of origin. For example, when people see a handbag bearing the label ‘Chanel’ or ‘Louis Vuitton’ logo, they do not simply recognise a product. This means that any form of transformative use should not be discouraged.
Sustainability Considerations
Overzealous trademark regulation can actually encourage wastefulness through a reduction in the promotion of recycling activities. Legal regulations that punish the reuse of long-lasting luxury products can come into conflict with sustainable development objectives supported by governments and international organisations dedicated to sustainable development.
Consumer Understanding
Today’s consumers are often sophisticated. Many consumers of upcycled luxury goods know for sure that the goods are not licensed but privately manufactured. When there is no risk of misunderstanding, such aggressive dilution claims seem exaggerated and can erode consumers’ confidence in trademarks.
VI. The Sustainability Argument
The issue of sustainability is especially important. Climate change, natural resources depletion, and textile waste make environmental protection one of the major policy issues of our time, for all stakeholders, from national and supranational governments to the private sector. Fashion upcycling promotes sustainability through extended use, recycling, conservation of natural resources, encouragement of circular consumption, and support of creative small businesses, which provide jobs for talented artisans. Any lawmaking approach that puts trademark ownership over the issue of sustainability would conflict with modern public policies on the matter.
Some luxury fashion brands have adopted circularity measures of their own, implementing repair service programs, resale services, and upcycling products. Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Hermès, and Stella McCartney have all initiated sustainability programs that include aspects of the circular economy. This shows how luxury fashion brands see potential harmony between their value proposition and sustainability goals, suggesting that any objections from luxury fashion brands against independent upcyclers have more to do with competition than with trademark considerations.
Taking a policy standpoint, the system of laws that allows upcycling of brands by those who own the brands but do not allow independent upcycling can be viewed as a barrier to competition in the circular fashion industry. This is because the law should discriminate between confusing/diluting practices and creative, environmentally friendly practices of upcycling.
VII. Policy Implications for India
There is no doubt that India plays an important role within the fashion industry globally. There are many traditions regarding reusing and recycling things. At the same time, it is one of the rapidly growing markets for luxury, and the more people buy luxury, the more conflicts about upcycled brands there will be.
Existing Legal Framework
Trademark protection in India is governed primarily by the Trade Marks Act 1999, which was enacted to align Indian trademark law with international standards set by the TRIPS Agreement.[16] The Act provides for registration of trademarks for goods and services, multiclass applications, and recognition of well-known marks. Section 2(1)(zb) defines a trademark as a mark capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others.[17]
Trademark infringement, passing-off, protection of well-known trademarks, and dilution are covered by the Act. Indian courts have shown an inclination for strong protection of famous marks, which is also in line with India’s international commitments to the Paris Convention and the TRIPS agreement. Fashion upcycling does not seem to fall within any provision of the law, and there is also no Indian judicial decision dealing comprehensively with the trademark aspect of upcycling.
Challenges for Indian Courts
The following are some of the intertwined problems that judges in India have to face when dealing with upcycling cases. Firstly, there is the problem of determining how much modification needs to be done before protection ceases to be enjoyed under the doctrine of exhaustion; this does not have a ready-made solution in Indian laws. Secondly, there is the problem of whether liability should be determined based on consumer confusion or just the presence of a famous brand on the modified article.
Fourth, they must determine whether artistic and transformative uses should receive enhanced protection by analogy to fair use doctrines developed in copyright law.
Lessons from Comparative Jurisprudence
India can learn some lessons from other countries in this context. Inventions that produce a new product need more legal recognition than simple reproductions. A precedent set by the Korean Supreme Court in 2026 is especially relevant to this point, distinguishing personal modifications at the request of the owner from independent commercial exploitation that the Indian judiciary can use.
Clear labelling and disclosure are absolutely crucial for avoiding consumer deception. Independent upcyclers should be made to disclose the fact that they do not represent any luxury brand, the extent of the modifications, and their identities. These measures will help eliminate the issue of potential consumer deception significantly without banning upcycling altogether.
Proposed Indian Framework
An equilibrium-based framework for India could incorporate three layers. The first layer would include full protection of any resale of unaltered luxury products using exhaustion principles that align with Indian trademark laws and TRIPS. The second layer would cover minor upcycling with the visible alteration of the brand but not substantial transformation, provided there is clear disclaiming, sufficient disclosure of lack of affiliation, and no true confusion. Finally, extensive rebranding for the commercial use of extensively altered luxury goods which leverage brand reputation to create confusion or dilution would still be subject to trademark protection.
This approach would safeguard trademark rights while promoting sustainability and innovation in the circular fashion industry.
VIII. The Future of Luxury Brands and Circular Fashion
Sustainability itself is becoming an important aspect for many luxury brands. It is worth noting that many high-profile fashion brands already support repair services, reselling platforms, circular economy policies, and sustainable material sources. Such an approach implies that the conflict of interests between upcyclers and luxury brands may shift from confrontation to collaboration in the future. Some of those brands could decide to licence some upcyclers, implement customisation services, create circular products and even collaborate with independent designers whose style fits their image.
In such a manner, the existing problem of infringement cases can be transformed into business opportunities, while at the same time, they will bring more clarity regarding authorisation issues via implementing licensing agreements. Moreover, it is necessary to focus on the role of digital platforms in the further development of circular luxury. Digital platforms for selling luxury goods, which were customised or upcycled, will face the issue of their legal responsibility regarding infringing deals. In such a manner, legal norms in this regard would benefit not only the parties involved but also intermediaries.
IX. Conclusion
Remix culture and trademark dilution are at odds, and the conflict between the two constitutes one of the most significant current problems in intellectual property law. Luxury fashion upcycling is at the heart of the discussion, as it entails elements of trademarks, consumer rights, artistic creativity, and environmental protection.
Trademarks were conceived within a context that was marked by a linear economy and consumers who only interacted with products as end users. However, the modern age is not characterised by these factors anymore; people today use goods as creative sources, and environmental awareness calls for a circular approach.
Trademark owners have valid grounds to protect their brands from damage through dilution doctrines. On the other hand, there are fears of everlasting control over objects even after the transaction has occurred.
The comparative analysis based on the examples from the United States in Chanel Inc v Shiver + Duke LLC, Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc cases, the 2026 Korea Supreme Court decision, and other European developments in policy making shows that complete brand control and unlimited use of upcycling are not satisfactory solutions. There should be a more balanced way that takes into consideration transformations, consumers’ perceptions, disclosures, and the goals of sustainability. Instead of checking whether or not the trademarks were used, the court and policymakers should ask themselves whether there was any consumer confusion or whether the legitimate interests of the brand were harmed in any way.
As for India, the problem is especially relevant since it has to develop policies for intellectual property protection and luxury growth at the same time, while implementing sustainability practices.
In the end, the evolution of fashion law will not be one where there is an either-or choice between sustainability and trademark protection; rather, it must be a balancing act where both can coexist. Luxury fashion upcycling proves that it is possible to reconcile these values without sacrificing creativity or intellectual property protection.
References and Bibliography
Cases
United States
Chanel Inc v Shiver and Duke LLC No 1:21-cv-01277-MKV (SDNY, complaint filed 12 February
2021; stipulated final order and judgment 30 November 2022)
Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons Inc 568 US 519 (2013)
Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc No 4:21-CV-00352 (SD Tex 2021)
Korea
Supreme Court of Korea, Case No 2024Da31181 (26 February 2026)
Legislation and International Instruments
India
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India)
United States
Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006 (US), Pub L 109-312, 120 Stat 1730
European Union
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
International Instruments
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994, Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (as amended on 28 September 1979) 828 UNTS 305
Books
Jenkins H, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York University Press 2006)
Lessig L, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Penguin Press 2008)
Journal Articles
‘Trademark Hurdles in Upcycling: Legal Red Flags in Green Solutions’ (Fashion Law Journal, 2024) <https://fashionlawjournal.com/trademark-hurdles-in-upcycling-legal-red-flags-in-green-solutions> accessed 6 June 2026
Online Sources
‘Chanel Settles Upcycling Case Over Logo-Bearing Jewelry’ (The Fashion Law, 30 November 2022) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/chanel-settles-upcycling-suit-over-jewelry-made-from-logo-bearing-buttons> accessed 6 June 2026
Earth.Org, ‘The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion, explained’ (Earth.Org, 2026) <https://earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/> accessed 6 June 2026
Greenly, ‘What is Upcycling?’ (Greenly.earth, 2025) <https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/company-guide/what-is-upcycling> accessed 6 June 2026
‘Korea’s Top Court Draws the Line on Luxury Upcycling’ (The Fashion Law, February 2026) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/in-louis-vuitton-case-koreas-top-court-draws-the-line-on-luxury-upcycling> accessed 6 June 2026
‘Korean Supreme Court Rules Personal Louis Vuitton Reforms are Not Trademark Infringement’ (Managing Intellectual Property, March 2026) <https://www.managingip.com/article/2g3m5pwa9hey4rvlhtqf4> accessed 6 June 2026
‘Louis Vuitton Settles Trademark Suit Amid Rise in Upcycling Cases’ (The Fashion Law, 2022) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/louis-vuitton-sandra-ling-settle-trademark-suit-amid-rise-in-upcycling-cases> accessed 6 June 2026
Deluxe Magazine, ‘Fashion: The Art, Industry, and Evolution of Personal Style’ (Deluxe Magazine, 2025) <https://deluxe-magazine.com/fashion-the-art-industry-and-evolution-of-personal-style.html> accessed 6 June 2026
Plastic Reimagined, ‘Upcycling Defined: A Creative Approach to Sustainable Living’ (Plastic Reimagined, 2024) <https://www.plasticreimagined.org/articles/upcycling-explained-4-ways-it-can-help-the-planet> accessed 6 June 2026
‘The Implications of Upcycled Products for Brand and Trademark Owners’ (IPWatchdog, 27 June 2023) <https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/06/27/implications-upcycled-products-brand-trademark-owners> accessed 6 June 2026
[1] Greenly, ‘What is Upcycling?’ (Greenly.earth,2025) https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/company-guide/what-is-upcycling,accessed 6 June 2026.
[2] Earth.Org, ‘The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion, Explained’ (Earth.Org,2026) https://earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/,accessed 6 June 2026
[3] Plastic reimagined, ‘Upcycling Defined: A Creative Approach to Sustainable Living’ (Plastic reimagined,2024) https://www.plasticreimagined.org/articles/upcycling-explained-4-ways-it-can-help-the-planet,accessed 6 June 2026
[4]Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Penguin Press 2008) xvii–xix.
[5]ibid xviii; see also Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York University Press 2006) 3.
[6] Deluxe Magazine, ‘Fashion: The Art, Industry, and Evolution of Personal Style’ (Deluxe Magazine,2025) https://deluxe-magazine.com/fashion-the-art-industry-and-evolution-of-personal-style.html,accessed 6 June 2026
[7]Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons Inc 568 US 519 (2013). Although a copyright decision, its reasoning on the exhaustion of intellectual property rights after an authorised first sale has been widely applied by analogy in trademark scholarship.
[8]Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc No 4:21-CV-00352 (SD Tex 2021); ‘Trademark Hurdles in Upcycling: Legal Red Flags in Green Solutions’ (Fashion Law Journal, 2024) <https://fashionlawjournal.com/trademark-hurdles-in-upcycling-legal-red-flags-in-green-solutions> accessed 6 June 2026.
[9]Chanel Inc v Shiver and Duke LLC No 1:21-cv-01277-MKV (SDNY, complaint filed 12 February 2021).
[10]‘The Implications of Upcycled Products for Brand and Trademark Owners’ (IPWatchdog, 27 June 2023) <https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/06/27/implications-upcycled-products-brand-trademark-owners> accessed 6 June 2026.
[11]‘Chanel Settles Upcycling Case Over Logo-Bearing Jewelry’ (The Fashion Law, 30 November 2022) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/chanel-settles-upcycling-suit-over-jewelry-made-from-logo-bearing-buttons> accessed 6 June 2026; Chanel Inc v Shiver and Duke LLC No 1:21-cv-01277-MKV (SDNY), stipulated final order and judgment (30 November 2022).
[12]Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS v Sandra Ling Designs Inc No 4:21-CV-00352 (SD Tex 2021).
[13]‘Louis Vuitton Settles Trademark Suit Amid Rise in Upcycling Cases’ (The Fashion Law, 2022) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/louis-vuitton-sandra-ling-settle-trademark-suit-amid-rise-in-upcycling-cases> accessed 6 June 2026.
[14]Supreme Court of Korea, Case No 2024Da31181 (26 February 2026); ‘Korea’s Top Court Draws the Line on Luxury Upcycling’ (The Fashion Law, February 2026) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/in-louis-vuitton-case-koreas-top-court-draws-the-line-on-luxury-upcycling> accessed 6 June 2026.
[15]ibid; ‘Korean Supreme Court Rules Personal Louis Vuitton Reforms are Not Trademark Infringement’ (Managing Intellectual Property, March 2026) <https://www.managingip.com/article/2g3m5pwa9hey4rvlhtqf4> accessed 6 June 2026.
[16]Trade Marks Act 1999 (India); Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994, Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
[17]Trade Marks Act 1999 (India) s 2(1)(zb) (definition of trademark); s 11(6) (criteria for well-known marks).
