JSC v Nomination: repackaging genuine jewellery was still trademark infringement
JSCvNomination De Antonio E Paolo Gensini SNC
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 5 February 2020
- Citation
- [2020] EWCA Civ 103
Buying genuine branded goods to resell doesn't give you a free hand to repackage and rebundle them however you like.
A jewellery reseller bought genuine Nomination charm bracelets, stripped them from their luxury packaging, and resold the links bundled with its own cheaper charms. The Court of Appeal agreed this amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
What happened
Nomination made NOMINATION branded combinable charm bracelets, sold through a selective network of retailers in elegant, distinctive packaging. JSC, a husband and wife jewellery partnership, bought genuine Nomination bracelets, took them apart, and resold the individual base links on eBay bundled together with its own DAISY CHARM links. JSC repackaged the genuine Nomination links in cheap blister packs or plastic bags, and its eBay listings did not clearly show which links came from Nomination and which were JSC's own. Nomination said this damaged its luxury reputation and confused buyers about where the links came from.
What did the court decide in JSC v Nomination De Antonio E Paolo Gensini SNC?
The Court of Appeal dismissed JSC's appeal. It held the trial judge was entitled to find that repackaging genuine Nomination links in cheap packaging gave Nomination a legitimate reason, under Article 13(2) of the Trademarks Directive, to object to further resale even though the goods themselves were genuine and had already been put on the market (known as exhaustion of rights). The judge was also entitled to find the eBay listings blurred the distinction between Nomination's links and JSC's own, which amounted to actual confusion, trademark infringement and passing off. The Court of Appeal gave weight to the trial judge having seen live evidence and the physical packaging itself, which the appeal court had not.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that reselling genuine branded goods carries more risk than people expect once you start changing how they're packaged or presented alongside other products.
- A trademark owner can still object to resale of its own genuine goods if the way they're repackaged damages the brand's reputation, particularly for luxury or quality-focused brands.
- Advertising that mixes a trademark owner's genuine products with your own under one listing needs to make the source of each item obvious, or it risks being read as misleading.
- Decisions like this often turn on what the trial judge saw and heard directly, such as physical packaging and live witnesses, which makes early evidence gathering important if a dispute like this arises.
Things to be aware of
- This case turned heavily on the trial judge's firsthand assessment of physical packaging and live witness evidence, which the Court of Appeal was reluctant to second-guess.
- The Court of Appeal did not need to resolve every legal question raised on appeal because the passing off finding alone was enough to dismiss it, so some points remain open.
- The outcome reflects Nomination's position as a luxury brand with a selective retail network; the same repackaging might be assessed differently for a brand without that quality image to protect.
The businesses involved
The claimant
One half of the husband and wife partnership trading as JSC, which bought genuine Nomination charm bracelets, disassembled them, and resold the links bundled with its own branded charms on eBay.
Nomination De Antonio E Paolo Gensini SNC
Manufacturer based outside the UK of NOMINATION branded combinable charm bracelets, sold through a selective network of retailers using distinctive luxury packaging.
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2020] EWCA Civ 103 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
