The judgment delivered by the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris on 21 May 2026 defines the limits of so-called upcycling, namely the practice of transforming an existing product in order to give it a new life.
This increasingly widespread practice is often promoted as a means of extending the lifespan of existing products while reducing waste and is attracting a growing number of businesses and consumers alike.
However, behind the sustainability narrative lie complex legal questions: what happens when the most valuable element of a reused product is not the material itself, but the trade mark associated with it?
The dispute arose from proceedings brought by the French luxury fashion house Chanel against a company known as Kamad Reworked, which operates in the sustainable fashion sector.
Kamad Reworked marketed necklaces, bracelets, earrings and other items of jewellery incorporating components taken from genuine Chanel products, particularly buttons and buckles bearing the well-known interlocking “CC” monogram, as well as the word marks “Chanel” and “Coco”. Each Kamad product was accompanied by a certificate of authenticity referring to the work carried out by the company on the original branded products. The certificate stated that the items constituted original Kamad creations and that the company was not affiliated with the trade marks from which the recycled components had originated.
Following online investigations and the collection of purchase evidence, Chanel sent cease-and-desist letters to Kamad in 2023. As no action was taken in response and the products continued to be marketed, Chanel commenced proceedings before the Paris court seeking, among other things, a declaration that Kamad had infringed its trade marks and engaged in misleading commercial practices.
During the pre-litigation phase, Kamad relied on the doctrine of exhaustion of trademark rights. It argued that it used genuine second-hand Chanel products, transformed them through its own creative process, and adequately informed consumers of its independence from the fashion house by means of statements published on its website and by affixing its own trademark to the reverse of the charms.
However, Kamad did not appear in the court proceedings and was therefore in default.
The court’s analysis focused on the scope of the exhaustion of trademark rights under European Union law.
Pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436, the proprietor of a trade mark may not oppose the further commercialisation of goods bearing its mark where those goods have been placed on the market within the European Economic Area by the proprietor or with its consent.
The legislation nevertheless reserves to the trademark proprietor the right to oppose further commercialisation where there are “legitimate reasons” for doing so, particularly where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they were first placed on the market.
The court found that the upcycling process adopted by Kamad Reworked fell squarely within that exception. The Chanel-branded components had been removed from the original products and incorporated into entirely different items of jewellery, thereby undergoing material alterations sufficient to create wholly new products that Chanel had never authorised.
In those circumstances, the doctrine of exhaustion could not apply because the products benefiting from the right of further commercialisation no longer corresponded, even in part, to those originally placed on the market by the trademark owner.
Accordingly, the exhaustion of trademark rights presupposes continuity of identity between the product originally marketed by the proprietor and the product subsequently resold. Where an upcycler materially transforms branded components into an entirely new object, that continuity ceases to exist, and the existence of a legitimate reason to oppose further commercialisation arises irrespective of the authenticity of the original materials.
The Court further held that neither the affixing of the “Kamad Reworked” trademark to the reverse of the reworked jewellery nor the disclaimers displayed on the company’s website, intended to emphasise its independence from Chanel, were sufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, certain statements referring to the authenticity of the original components, together with the certificate of authenticity itself, were liable to reinforce in consumers’ minds the impression that part of the products remained attributable to Chanel. On that basis, Kamad was also found liable for engaging in misleading commercial practices.
The Paris decision forms part of an already well-established line of French case law and confirms that the environmental sustainability objectives pursued through upcycling do not amount to an automatic licence to market products incorporating third-party trademarks without the proprietor’s authorisation. The trademark’s owner retains the exclusive right to control the manner in which its trademark reaches consumers, including where genuine branded components have been extracted from authentic products but subsequently subjected to material transformation through the creative intervention of third parties.