A Misleading Trademark? CJEU Issues a Judgment 

Can including a number in a trademark that suggests a fictitious historical heritage of a brand be considered misleading? According to the CJEU – yes. 

The judgment of 26 March 2026 in Case C-412/24 is of significant importance for the practice of registering and using trademarks, particularly for brands that refer to tradition, long-standing – or sometimes even centuries-old -activity or historical heritage. 

The Court confirmed that a trademark containing a historical date may mislead consumers if it suggests continuity of activity, reputation, or commercial origin that does not exist. 

The “Paris 1717” Case 

At the beginning of the 18th century, during the reign of Louis XV, a company called Maison Fauré Le Page was established in the French capital. It operated in the market for firearms, ammunition, and leather goods and accessories. The company built an enviable reputation by supplying weapons – including beautifully decorated pistols – to clients such as Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and the Emperor of the French, Napoleon I Bonaparte. 

The company existed until 1992, when it was dissolved. Its assets, including trademark rights, passed to its sole shareholder. However, in 2009 a new company was established and acquired the right to use the Fauré Le Page trademark. Two years later, it applied to register the mark “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” for luxury leather goods. 

The mark was challenged by Goyard St-Honoré, a competitor from the same industry, which filed an application for invalidation. During lengthy proceedings before the French courts, Goyard St-Honoré argued that Fauré Le Page was misleading consumers as to its historical heritage and possession of long-standing know-how. 

The Cour de cassation, examining the cassation appeal lodged by Fauré Le Page, referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It asked whether, under EU law, a trademark may be regarded as misleading where it contains a number that may be perceived by the relevant public as indicating a distant year of establishment of the undertaking, thereby invoking, due to the passage of time, long-standing know-how – even though such know-how does not in fact exist. 

The Nature of the Dispute 

The subject matter of the dispute was interesting in itself. It did not concern a “traditional” conflict between two premium-segment manufacturers over similarity of signs. Rather, the case concerned the truthfulness of Fauré Le Page’s claim to a long-standing tradition dating back to a time long before the French Revolution. 

To understand the essence of the dispute, one must bear in mind that luxury brands are not only about high-quality products, advanced technologies, and carefully selected materials and raw materials. They also rely on the entire aura of exclusivity and long-standing tradition –   preferably passed down “from father to son.” This is why premium brands are so eager to showcase old black-and-white photographs of former owners, historic workshops, and historical diplomas, certificates, or royal warrants. The genuine age of a brand often acts as a self-standing certificate of high quality. The stakes in this case were therefore high. 

In challenging the designation containing the number 1717, Goyard St-Honoré argued that the trademark owner was not recounting the brand’s history but rather rewriting it – an act capable of misleading consumers and potential customers of the brand. 

The CJEU Judgment 

The case was examined by the Court under the preliminary ruling procedure (on the basis of a question referred by a national court). In its judgment of 26 March 2026, the Court held that a trademark containing a date may mislead the public if the date evokes long-standing know-how that guarantees quality and confers a prestigious image on the goods for which the mark is registered, even though such historically extensive know-how does not exist. 

In this respect, the Court referred to its earlier case law, namely the judgment in Case C-59/08 “Copad”, recalling that in the field of luxury goods, quality may also derive from presentation and prestigious image. 

The CJEU stated that, pursuant to Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC (subsequently repealed and replaced by Directive 2015/2436, but applicable ratione temporis to the dispute before the French courts), trademarks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services, shall not be registered, or, if registered, shall be liable to be declared invalid. (For comparison, Article 4(1)(g) of Directive 2015/2436 provides for mandatory invalidation.) The Court also referred to the analogous provision of French law – Article L. 711-3(c) of the French Intellectual Property Code. 

In the Court’s view, Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC must be interpreted as meaning that where a trademark contains a number that may be perceived by the relevant public as indicating the year of establishment of the undertaking and, due to its historical character, evokes long-standing know-how guaranteeing the quality of the goods and conferring a prestigious image upon them – even though such historically extensive know-how does not exist – it may be inferred that the trademark is liable to mislead the public within the meaning of that provision. 

Of course, as the Court clarified, it is for the national court to carry out a specific assessment, in light of all the circumstances of the case, as to whether the number appearing in the contested trademark is perceived by the relevant public as a year evoking long-standing tradition and know-how, by examining the mark as a whole and the message it conveys. 

Significance of the Judgment for Business 

It should be noted that the judgment in Case C-412/24 has a highly practical dimension. The Court held that a trademark containing a number constituting (or perceived as) a date may mislead the public if it includes an element suggesting a historical origin of the undertaking that is inconsistent with reality. 

A date forming part of a trademark should not be seen merely as an eye-catching decorative element, but as a carrier of specific information about the undertaking and the products or services it offers. It is concrete information on the basis of which consumers may form expectations as to quality, experience, and reputation. 

As already mentioned, long-standing tradition is of great importance in the luxury brand sector – history, tradition, and the experience that comes with them form part of the product’s value. 

Although it is not yet known how the French Court of Cassation will ultimately decide the case in light of the CJEU’s ruling, one important conclusion can already be drawn: misleading character of a trademark may relate not only to geographical origin, nature, or quality of goods, but also to the tradition, continuity of brand history, and long-standing know-how affecting quality – particularly in the premium segment. 

Summary 

A trademark cannot promise tradition and history where none exists. Therefore, before filing a trademark application, it is worth not only verifying that the formal requirements are met, but also reflecting on whether the story we intend to convey through the sign is true. Are we able to honestly deliver what our trademark promises? 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)