"Who Owns Luxury? Exploring the Debate Over Brand Ownership of Logos and Images After Consumer Purchases"

Chanel has filed a lawsuit against a small woman-owned business for what they claim is trademark infringement under the “Lanham Act”. The act “provides for a national system of trademark registration and protects the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion, or if the dilution of a famous mark is likely to occur” (Wikipedia).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act#:~:text

Designer Therapy is a small, woman-owned business that specializes in acquiring authentic designer buttons and turning them into pieces of jewelry. Jennifer Barker, the owner of Designer Therapy, began collecting and trading designer buttons as a hobby until she discovered the vast world of luxury collecting.

Barker was inspired by her late grandmother’s vintage jewelry collection when she created Designer Therapy, she wanted to give a new life to her grandmother’s vintage pieces by incorporating her newly acquired luxury buttons. She now works with high-end collectors in Europe to source designer buttons, and she then turns them into various pieces of jewelry. Designer Therapy’s pieces most commonly consist of buttons and charms from brands like Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Dior.

Barker asserts that every button is authentic, ensuring that the company works with trusted high-end collectors and authentication experts to verify that each piece is genuine. In the description of its pieces, Designer Therapy also provides, when known, the item of clothing from which the button was sourced. Designer Therapy states that the company and its affiliated collectors are firm believers in up-cycling and sustainability.

Designer Therapy is one of many companies that up-cycle designer pieces bearing a brand’s trademark, repurposing them into one of a kind items.

I once saw an original Apple Mac in an antique shop that had been repurposed into countertop spice rack. It still had the Apple logo on it. Is this a violation of the Lanham Act? Or, if I choose to place garments that are out of style or no longer fit me in a consignment shop. Does the luxury brand have the legal right to stop me from reselling them?

Is it time for the Lanham Act to be amended to take into account the need for up-cycling products so that they do not end up in a landfill or incinerator? And still, maintaining the provision that as long as the organization performing the up-cycling or repurposing does not “imply” that they are affiliated or a division of the luxury brand they are up-cycling.

Please follow the link to an article in the Texas A&M Law Review.

https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1269&context=lawreview

With civilized man’s history of take/make/waste, our perpetuation of a linear economy can no longer continue. As we have long suspected and are now discovering, we must change our approach to recycling, up-cycling and sustainability. We must develop ways to adapt these linear models to circular ones.