Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 10 avril 2025 (n° 22/10720) — Hermès v. Maison R&C — First French “Upcycling” Decision Holds Recombining Authentic Hermès Scarves Into Denim Jackets Constitutes Copyright and Trademark Infringement

Background

Hermès International and Hermès Sellier are the proprietors of copyright in the artistic designs of the iconic Hermès silk scarves (carrés) and of the registered Hermès word marks and figurative marks affixed to those scarves. Beginning in 2021, the defendants Maison R&C and Atelier R&C, along with their gérante Géraldine Lugassy Demri, established a commercial “upcycling” business: they purchased authentic Hermès silk scarves and authentic Levi’s denim jackets, cut the scarves into pieces, and incorporated the scarf fragments into the denim jackets — sometimes including cut-out portions of the Hermès word mark, sometimes excising the word mark deliberately. Customers could choose from a catalog of scarves, including several emblematic Hermès designs, and have a custom denim jacket made for them.

Hermès sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair and parasitic competition. The defendants relied on copyright exhaustion (the original Hermès scarves had been lawfully placed on the market), trademark exhaustion (same), and a sustainability/environmental policy argument that upcycling should be treated as a recognized exception to IP enforcement.

The Court’s Holding

The Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (3rd chamber, 1st section) held in favor of Hermès on every count and rejected the defendants’ exhaustion and sustainability defenses.

Copyright infringement. The court ruled that incorporating Hermès’s copyright-protected scarves into denim jackets constitutes a change of medium or form (changement de support ou de forme) compared to the original Hermès silk-scarf product. Following the CJEU’s reasoning in Art & Allposters International (C-419/13, 22 January 2015), the court held that copyright exhaustion does not extend to a change of medium — the doctrine permits resale of the original work in its original form, but not transformation of the work into a new medium. The denim-jacket-with-incorporated-scarf-fragments is a different work than the original silk scarf, and Hermès’s copyright in the scarf design therefore survives the original sale of the scarf.

Trademark infringement. The court ruled that the defendants’ product infringed Hermès’s trademarks both (i) for jackets containing the Hermès word mark (cut from the original scarf and physically attached to the jacket) and (ii) for jackets where the word mark had been deliberately cut out and removed. Even in the latter case, the public perceives the goods as Hermès-related due to the recognizable Hermès scarf designs and the way the upcycled product is marketed; the defendants therefore created an unauthorized association with the Hermès brand. The trademark-exhaustion defense fails for the same reason as copyright exhaustion: the defendants did not resell the original Hermès scarves; they transformed them into a new product, which falls outside the exhaustion rule.

Sustainability is not a defense. The court rejected the argument that upcycling, as an environmentally beneficial practice, justifies a restriction of intellectual property rights. The court emphasized that no provision of EU law or French law establishes upcycling as a recognized exception to copyright or trademark exclusivity. Moreover, the defendants’ upcycling activity occurred within a commercial business pursuing profit, not within a non-profit environmental project — the sustainability framing was, in the court’s view, a marketing device rather than a substantive ground for exempting the activity from IP law.

Damages and remedies. The court awarded Hermès €10,000 in damages for trademark infringement plus €30,000 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure (legal costs and attorneys’ fees). The court ordered cessation of the infringing activity, destruction of remaining inventory, and publication of the decision (publication) in trade publications.

Key Takeaways

• This is one of the first French judicial decisions on upcycling and one of the most cited European decisions on the IP boundaries of the practice. The court’s reasoning will be persuasive in other EU jurisdictions facing similar disputes.
• Copyright exhaustion does not survive a change of medium. Art & Allposters remains good law: a buyer who acquires a copyrighted work has the right to resell that work, but not to transform it into a new medium for resale.
• Trademark exhaustion likewise does not extend to transformation of the original product. Cutting out the trademark itself does not cure the infringement where the resulting product still creates an unauthorized association with the trademark holder.
• Sustainability and environmental claims do not function as a defense to IP law in France. Counsel for upcycling businesses should not rely on sustainability framing — courts will look to the commercial reality, and a profit-motivated upcycling business is treated like any other commercial actor.
• For luxury brands, this decision provides a clear playbook for enforcing against opportunistic upcycling: emphasize the change-of-medium analysis, demonstrate the consumer-perception link to the brand, and document the commercial nature of the upcycling activity.

Why It Matters

Upcycling has emerged as one of the fastest-growing fashion-industry segments, blending environmental sustainability claims with commercial reuse of designer materials. The Hermès v. Maison R&C decision is the first definitive French judicial answer to the IP-vs-sustainability tension: French law requires the upcycler to obtain permission from the rights-holders. Sustainability framing alone is not a license.

For luxury brands, the case is a model. Hermès assembled the proof set that worked: copyright registration / authorship of the scarf designs, registered trademarks on the relevant scarves and on the word mark, evidence of the defendants’ commercial purpose, and clear evidence that consumers perceived the upcycled product as connected to Hermès. Other luxury houses have run parallel litigation in France and elsewhere — Louis Vuitton in Paris, Hermès in Singapore against the Blao & Co. defendants, Chanel in the U.S. — and the doctrinal direction is now consistent: change of medium defeats exhaustion.

For sustainability-driven upcyclers, the decision is a significant constraint. Operating a commercial upcycling business that incorporates branded materials without rights-holder permission is, in France, infringement. Realistic paths forward include licensing arrangements with the source brand, working only with brand-removed (de-branded) source materials, or focusing on non-branded source goods. The environmental rationale, however genuine, is not by itself a legal shield.

Looking ahead, the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris ruled in a parallel matter on 7 February 2025 (RG n° 22/09210) on a different Hermès upcycling defendant, reinforcing the same doctrinal framework. Together, these decisions form the early backbone of a French “upcycling-and-IP” body of law that other EU member states are likely to track closely.