Is it legal to sell an upcycled article of clothing with an existing logo?

[worker_bee]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

If I purchased a used shirt bearing a logo (like Nike, for example,) from a thrift store and tie-dyed it, would it be legal for me to sell the shirt? Or if I were given several new shirts with a beer logo (like Guinness, for example,) would it be legal for me to tie-dye and sell them?

If it's legal to sell these repurposed or upcycled shirts, could an online listing mention the brand being advertised? And just because I'm curious, would it be legal to sell a shirt with a logo if I didn't alter it?

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

If I purchased a used shirt bearing a logo (like Nike, for example,) from a thrift store and tie-dyed it, would it be legal for me to sell the shirt? Or if I were given several new shirts with a beer logo (like Guinness, for example,) would it be legal for me to tie-dye and sell them?

If it's legal to sell these repurposed or upcycled shirts, could an online listing mention the brand being advertised? And just because I'm curious, would it be legal to sell a shirt with a logo if I didn't alter it?

Thanks in advance for the help.

It would not be legal to alter the tee shirt for sale but you could legally resell the tee shirt as is.

There is an older thread that discusses this in some depth and I will provide a link to it when I locate it but the bottom line is that selling items with modified or altered trademarks infringe on the rights of the trademark holder.

 

[zddoodah]

The answer to all four of your questions is yes. You are free to sell something you legally own and may include a description of the item, including pictures.

 

[quincy]

The answer to all four of your questions is yes. You are free to sell something you legally own and may include a description of the item, including pictures.

That is incorrect.

 

[worker_bee]

Thank you for the answers. Quincy, is there a legal distinction between altering a trademark (like drawing eyeballs on a Swoosh, for example,) and altering the appearance of a shirt without actually altering the trademark itself (like dying a white shirt red while leaving the trademark alone)?

 

[quincy]

Thank you for the answers. Quincy, is there a legal distinction between altering a trademark (like drawing eyeballs on a Swoosh, for example,) and altering the appearance of a shirt without actually altering the trademark itself (like dying a white shirt red while leaving the trademark alone)?

The main factor a court will look at is whether a material difference has been made in a product that is trademark-protected.

The First Sale Doctrine permits the resale of goods that are trademark-protected but does not permit the purchaser of these goods to alter or modify the goods for resale. The modification or alteration infringes on the rights of the trademark holder.

Here is a link to one case (out of many) that discusses material differences and infringement (Davidoff CIE, SA v PLD Int’l Corp):

https://casetext.com/case/davidoff-cie-v-pld-international-corp#p1302

From Davidoff:
“The caselaw supports the proposition that the resale of a trademarked product that has been altered, resulting in physical differences in the product, can create a likelihood of consumer confusion.”

Trademark law centers on consumer confusion.

 

[worker_bee]

Thanks a bunch, Quincy!

 

[quincy]

I appreciate the thanks, worker_bee, so thank you.

Following is the link to the previous thread I mentioned earlier. It lists a few more cases to review.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/selling-reconstructed-hockey-jerseys-is-this-legal.506442/