Sure, he's putting the Corter Leather logo on the product. But he's also using the trademarked LV logo. It's not as egregious as outright counterfeiting, where

Sure, he's putting the Corter Leather logo on the product. But he's also using the trademarked LV logo. It's not as egregious as outright counterfeiting, where people build products trying to nearly exactly resemble a genuine LV product. But at the end of the day, he's still putting the LV logo front and center in the wallet. You don't automatically get to use another company's trademark just because you also put your own trademark on the product. Less egregious trademark infringement is still trademark infringement. Louis Vuitton was wrong to accuse him of counterfeiting, but they can accurately accuse him of trademark infringement. 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.