The whole story started with French trademark applications for “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” in 2011. At that time, Goyard didn’t attack the competitor’s advertising, but the registrations themselves, demanding their cancellation and arguing that the date 1717 could create a misleading impression of the brand’s historical origins. Over time, the dispute grew into the question of whether a trademark can be misleading not because it poorly describes the product, but because it sells customers a fictional company history.
At first glance, the case looks like a classic conflict between two luxury leather goods brands. On one side was Fauré Le Page, and on the other, Goyard. However, the dispute quickly went beyond a simple squabble over the similarity of trademarks. It was about whether the use of the date “1717” in the trademark creates a false impression of a very long history of the company and whether such a suggestion can influence the perception of quality, prestige, and craftsmanship.
This is what makes this case so interesting. Premium brands are very eager to sell not only the product but also the aura of tradition. The problem starts when the branding doesn’t tell the brand’s story, but rather adds to it. The court reminded that a consumer can also be misled when the trademark suggests a fictional historical heritage.
From a business perspective, the stakes were high. In the luxury segment, the “age of the brand” acts as a seal of quality. Such a date can suggest to the consumer: “this is a company with a multi-generational tradition, proven over decades, almost an institution.” However, if this message does not match the facts, it becomes not branding, but a legal risk.
The core of the ruling is very practical. The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that a trademark can mislead consumers if it contains an element suggesting a historical origin that the brand does not actually have. In other words, a date in a trademark is not always a neutral ornament. Sometimes it is specific commercial information that creates expectations about the origin, experience, and reputation of the company.
This is also important because many entrepreneurs treat trademarks primarily as a means of differentiation. But the law looks at it more broadly. A trademark must not only conflict with the rights of others, but also must not deceive the market. If the average consumer concludes from the marking that the brand has existed “since the 18th century,” and this is not true, there is a problem of misleading.
For luxury brands, this is a particularly important lesson. In this segment, history is not an addition, but part of the product’s value. The customer sometimes pays precisely for the brand’s legend, for the alleged continuity of craftsmanship, for the “old house” and its reputation. Therefore, if the trademark or historical message is exaggerated, the risk does not end with PR. It can end with the invalidation or a successful attack on the marking.
From the perspective of trademark practice, this ruling should be read together with the basic question: does the marking actually indicate the commercial origin, or is it rather trying to attribute prestige to the product that the brand has not yet earned? It is this second variant that is much more risky today.
This case shows that before filing, it is not enough to check only for conflicts with earlier rights. It is also necessary to assess whether the trademark itself does not promise the market something that the entrepreneur cannot honestly deliver.
This case serves as a good warning for brands that like to “age” themselves in their marketing. As a patent attorney, I would say: trademark law provides considerable freedom in shaping a brand’s image, but this freedom ends where a false commercial promise begins.
From the perspective of a European Patent Attorney, the most important thing is that the court is not pursuing the premium style itself, but rather the lack of consistency between the trademark and reality. If I were to summarize this in two sentences of expert commentary: a brand can build a narrative about quality and tradition, but it cannot create a fictional genealogy just to enhance the prestige of the trademark. In the case of trademarks containing dates or historical suggestions, a factual audit should be as important as a legal audit.
Was this outcome predictable? Yes, but mainly for those who look at a trademark not as a nice element of identification, but as a message directed to the consumer. That is why, before registration, it is worth doing not only a trademark search, but also a simple business test: what will the average customer really read from this date, name, or slogan?
For entrepreneurs, the lesson is simple: tradition sells well, but only when it’s genuine. If you’re building a premium brand and want to use dates, references to the founder, old workshops, or the phrase “passed down through generations,” you need to be able to back it up with documents and the company’s history.
This is also important for Polish companies. Many brands in the cosmetics, alcohol, furniture, accessories, and food sectors like to draw on retro styles and family stories. The vintage vibe itself is safe. It only becomes dangerous when the style starts to look like a specific claim about the company’s origin, age, or reputation.
A practical tip? Before registering a trademark, take three steps. First, check for conflicts with existing trademarks. Second, assess whether the mark is descriptive or misleading. Third, review all the elements of the “brand history” to see if they are factual or just creative styling. This third step is often overlooked, but after this ruling, it may be the deciding factor in the safety of the brand.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
