If you want to carry a new style of bag, you're afraid of "bumping into the bag", and it's difficult to find the condition of a used bag when searching for it. In such a dilemma, a transformation package claiming to be "original collage design" quietly became popular - merchants dismantled second-hand luxury bags and reassembled them with classic floral and plaid leather materials to create a unique product called "the only one in the world".
However, these seemingly unique "remanufactured bags" have recently revealed their true colors in a judgment by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
The court determined that even if the raw materials come from genuine second-hand bags, unauthorized use of someone else's registered trademark still constitutes infringement. The defendant, a company in Shenzhen, was ordered to immediately cease infringement, destroy inventory, and compensate Louis Vuitton (LV) for economic losses of 1.05 million yuan.
Is it 'rebuilding old things' or' hitchhiking '?
A company in Shenzhen specializes in luggage renovation business and has opened stores on multiple e-commerce platforms, focusing on "recycling second-hand branded bags for splicing and reconstruction". The bags it sells frequently feature LV's classic four petal flower, four pointed star, LV letter combination and other logos, and many of them have a highly similar appearance to the brand's classic design.
LV Company immediately filed a lawsuit, claiming that the behavior seriously infringed upon its registered trademark exclusive rights. The defendant argued that this is an "old object splicing design" that reflects environmental protection concepts, and the relevant trademarks are only used for decoration and have been marked with their own trademarks, which do not belong to trademark use.
The defendant argued that this is an "old object splicing design" that reflects environmental protection concepts, and the relevant trademarks are only used for decoration and have been marked with their own trademarks, which do not belong to trademark use.
Court ruling: Creativity cannot cross legal red lines
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that although the recycling and reuse of old objects conforms to environmental protection concepts and is worth encouraging, it cannot be used as a reason to infringe on the exclusive rights of others' registered trademarks.
The key is that the defendant prominently used the LV trademark logo on the bag, which constitutes "trademark use". Its promotional selling point of "luxury goods recycling and remanufacturing" is essentially using the commercial reputation of the LV trademark to attract consumers, which has exceeded the boundary of reasonable use.
Even if the raw materials come from genuine products, they cannot be verified for authenticity after being cut and reassembled. Once someone else's trademark is used on a new product without authorization, causing confusion among consumers, it constitutes infringement.
Expert analysis: Where is the boundary between creativity and infringement?
In recent years, the trend of 'recreating used bags' has become popular, but the boundary between creativity and infringement has always been blurred. The uniqueness of this case lies in the fact that the pattern used on the accused bag itself is a registered trademark.
Unauthorized use may lead consumers to mistakenly believe that the product comes from LV or is related to the brand. If the product quality is uneven, it will further undermine the quality assurance function of the trademark and damage the brand's long-term accumulated reputation. Even if the trademark is not directly used, if the spliced leather pattern belongs to the unique decoration of well-known products and has recognition function, it may also constitute unfair competition.
Judge's reminder: How to avoid stepping on landmines?
The presiding judge of the case believes that if genuine second-hand bags are used as renovation materials, measures such as removing the original labels should be taken, and the self owned trademark should be used in a prominent position on the new bag to ensure that consumers can clearly distinguish the source. Reasons such as "genuine leather material" and "environmentally friendly recycling" do not constitute a legal basis for the defense of infringement.
Operators should adhere to the bottom line of intellectual property compliance, abandon the "free riding" mentality, and establish a business concept that respects intellectual property and fair competition.


The concept of environmental protection is worth promoting, and there is indeed a market for creative transformation, but all innovation should be carried out within the legal framework. The verdict of this case has drawn a clear judicial red line for the "old thing recycling" industry - creativity cannot be a fig leaf for infringement, and respecting intellectual property rights is the true prerequisite for sustainable innovation.