Louis Vuitton takes on upcycling, Netflix’s patent fight gets a plot twist, and Wren’s search proves too expensive

How much of Louis Vuitton can you buy second-hand?

Kamad Reworked built a business around taking pieces of authentic Louis Vuitton products and incorporating them into clothing and accessories. Vuitton objected, and in a first-instance judgment the Paris Judicial Court awarded it €920,000 in damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and parasitism.

The judgment is worth reading because the court accepted that the original goods had been marketed in the European Economic Area with Vuitton’s consent. Ordinarily, that is the basis for trademark exhaustion, which allows genuine goods to be resold without seeking the brand owner’s permission for every subsequent transaction.

Kamad’s difficulty was that the court regarded its creations as new products, for which Vuitton’s consent was still required. The environmental and artistic arguments did not persuade the court to permit the activity.

For anyone working with second-hand fashion, the uncomfortable question is where resale ends and manufacturing begins. A business may have perfectly good evidence that it bought genuine materials, yet still face objections when it sells something different with the original branding prominently attached.

Judgment, no. 24/07925 ↗

Netflix’s patent fight gets a plot twist

Netflix’s dispute with DivX has produced the sort of procedural complication that makes a confident announcement of victory rather difficult. In September, the Unified Patent Court’s Munich local division upheld DivX’s EP 4 213 033, concerning progressive video playback, and granted an injunction against Netflix covering 18 UPC states. In October, JUVE Patent reported that the European Patent Office’s Opposition Division had revoked the same patent.

According to JUVE’s report of 20 October, DivX could appeal the EPO revocation and Netflix had already appealed the UPC ruling, leaving both parties with further proceedings to consider.

The case illustrates a difficulty businesses can encounter when validity is contested in parallel proceedings: the patent supporting an injunction may receive a very different assessment elsewhere. Anyone trying to explain the position to a board will need to specify which decision they mean, where it was made and what remains open to appeal.

JUVE Patent’s report ↗

Wren’s cheaper search was still too expensive

In its comparative advertising dispute with B&Q, Wren sought an additional search for images showing its marks in B&Q’s records. It proposed using an AI tool, with improvements in technology helping to reduce the estimated cost from £400,000 to about £100,000.

That reduction did not persuade the High Court to order the search. The judge considered the additional expenditure disproportionate given the apparent unlikelihood of finding relevant material, and was not satisfied that the exercise was necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings.

There is little reason to read this as judicial hostility towards AI, since the reasoning turns on the cost and likely usefulness of the particular search. It is, however, a useful decision for anyone presented with an impressive discount on litigation technology: the court still expects an explanation of what the remaining expenditure is likely to achieve.

B&Q v Wren, paragraphs 43–47 ↗

Britain considers an earlier opinion on patent licensing

The UK Intellectual Property Office is seeking evidence on a possible voluntary, non-binding opinion service for standard-essential patent licensing. It would help parties assess whether a proposed licence offer falls within a plausible range of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, usually shortened to FRAND.

Smaller businesses and less experienced negotiators are a particular focus, although no decision has been taken to establish the service. The call for evidence closes on 15 December 2026.

An independent assessment early in negotiations could give a business something firmer to work with than its own suspicion that the other side is asking too much. Whether the proposed service could deliver that at an affordable price will depend in part on its access to reliable licensing evidence, much of which may be confidential.

IPO consultation ↗