Nike’s original tarpaulin bag, center, and its modified versions into a cross-body bag and clutch bag, which became trendy for resale in Korea in 2023 / Screen capture from online communities
Upcycling a fashion item to extend its usability instead of trashing it might be a sustainable and even rewarding practice for consumers. But what about companies that produce those items? It turns out they harbor mixed views on the practice.
The issue surfaced last month when Louis Vuitton lost a court battle here against a repair shop in Seoul’s Gangnam District that for years repaired the brand’s handbags and other items for customers, changing their designs.
While the French luxury brand argued trademark infringement, its defeat highlighted the growing practice among Korean consumers of modifying their products and raised new questions for fashion firms about how freely their items can be altered.
Some companies said the consumer practice can create concerns about brand image. They argued that if the upcycling job was done by inexperienced crafters and resulted in a poorly constructed product emblazoned with the brand’s logo, the brand’s public image could be damaged. The consequences could be more damaging for more luxurious and high-end brands.
“With the Supreme Court’s decision, more fashion repairers here will now feel more comfortable modifying brand items. But what if some of them aren’t skillful enough to guarantee good quality? Nobody will be responsible for what’s ripped and stitched all over again,” an official from a major fashion producer said on condition of anonymity.
“Prominent fashion brands have their unique design and identity. That can be destroyed by unprofessional upcycling practices. For luxury brands, public image is almost everything.”
A major fashion shopping platform operator here said the upcycling practice can lead to a serious market disruption. He highlighted a controversial series of incidents in 2023 when Nike tarpaulin bags, available for under 2,000 won ($1.35), were modified into handbags, clutch bags and cross-body bags and resold for up to 110,000 won. The reproductions, which kept the brand logo intact, led to public ire questioning trademark violation concerns and the extravagant prices.
“Companies like Nike invest a tremendous amount of money to generate intangible assets, including trademark. The Louis Vuitton court case shows that such company properties can be vulnerable to illicit businesses solely driven by profiteering,” another company official said on condition of anonymity. “This development has called on fashion brand firms to prepare new brand management strategies.”
A fashion repair shop is seen in Seoul’s Jung District in this 2012 photo. Korea Times file
Other firms, however, viewed the same practice differently, seeing it as one rooted in sustainability and respecting the rights of consumers to modify their goods.
“The practice represents a currently rising sustainable movement in which consumers try to use products for a longer period. If certain brands see high modification demands from consumers, I think those demands can be translated into the consumers’ love and passion for the brands. It simply reflects their high popularity,” an official from a major fashion company here, which distributes more than 20 fashion labels, said on condition of anonymity.
Another major fashion retailer advocated for the practice, saying fashion upcycling does not seem to affect the company’s sales.
An official from the retailer cited Kolon Industry’s fashion-and-culture division that upcycles unsold products to reproduce new items under its dedicated brand RE;CODE. He also noted Uniqlo’s charity initiatives that use modified clothing for people with disabilities and provide them with training in repair and reproduction skills.
“Fashion upcycling is a common activity for consumers. They can visit repair centers run by brand firms or local entrepreneurs. Some companies even repair for free. There’s no reason to object to the practice,” the official said on condition of anonymity.
One of the officials noted that consumers only modify fashion brands they love. He referred to the practice as a “heavy crown popular brands must predict and endure.”
“Of course, abuse of prominent brands for the purpose of profiteering can jeopardize the brands’ public image. It requires consumers’ wise decisions and the companies’ effective countermeasures,” the officials said.