Refashioning Trade Mark Use: An Exhausting Tale of a Repair Shop in Korea

Repair, reuse and recycling pit the property interests in tangible goods against the rights of other rights holders, requiring careful policy coordination to balance the protection of property rights with the promotion of innovation and fair competition. Moreover, the repair, reuse and recycling of fashion goods require skills and craftsmanship that ordinary consumers may not possess, leading them to seek the services of professional third parties. This article discusses the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Korea (26 February 2026, Case No. 2024Da311181) concerning luxury goods refashioning services, namely owner-requested repair and upcycling services for products bearing famous trade marks. It explores how the Court balanced the competing interests and policy considerations at stake by applying the doctrine of trade mark use. This article first describes the facts and procedural history of the disputes that led to the decision of the Korean Supreme Court and discusses the legal principles through which the courts framed the reuse of luxury goods under Korean trade mark law. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court balanced the protection of a famous trade mark with the policy to promote sustainability, viewing the conduct of the refashioning business as that of intermediary service providers within the value chain of recycling and the circular economy. We note that the tools currently available to courts to encourage upcycling as a business may be limited. In the absence of clear legislation, courts may have limited means of permitting the reuse of tangible goods bearing others’ trade marks in the course of trade, even where such reuse serves the goals of a sustainable circular economy. This places particular importance on the interpretation of issues such as the characterization of upcycling, limiting doctrines, and knowledge requirements. In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision is noteworthy for its effective use of interpretative flexibility within the doctrine of trade mark use, thereby accommodating owner-requested upcycling for personal use.