Sorry just an aside. This is the funniest way to figure out its a Louis Rossman Video without checking the link first.
https://kagi.com/summarizer/index.html?target_language=&summ...
> The video discusses a case where a man modified used Louis Vuitton handbags to create his own wallets, removing the Louis Vuitton logo and adding his own. Louis Vuitton accused him of counterfeiting and sent a private investigator to his home to issue a cease and desist order, prohibiting him from even showing others how to do this online. The video argues that the man had the right to repurpose the handbags he legally purchased, and that companies like Louis Vuitton are overstepping by trying to control how people use their own property. It draws parallels to the right to repair movement, stating that a person's ownership rights supersede a company's brand image concerns. The video also criticizes major tech companies like Apple for their own poor repair practices that can damage their brand image.
It’s really not a cut and dry case.
That being said,
> without any LV logos or representation that these are a LV product
the LV logo is right there in the center of the product.
https://i.imgur.com/3vXfA1n.png
The LV logo is also displayed on clasps and whatnot, sure. But he's still selling a product that prominently displays the LV logo. His rationale seems to be that since repurposing fabric and leather is legal, it's also legal to build and sell products that clearly display the LV logo because it's printed on the repurposed fabric. I'm not sure whether this would actually hold up in court or not.
It sounds like his rationale is that he's only repurposing the material on the cut-up LV bag, which makes prominently displaying the LV trademark legal. I'm pretty skeptical he'd prevail if this actually went to court.
This made me smile. That's like watching a lock-picking lawyer video about his side project and saying "and then for some reason he picks a lock at the end of the video".
Singapore has it right about very little. Extravagant punishment for the sake of deterrence is not justice.