As we all know when considering a luxury purchase, dates in trade marks showing (or suggesting) the year a business was established catch the eye, leading the consumer to naturally expect the brand to reflect the heritage and expertise that such a date suggests. But just how “factual” does the date need to be? On 26 March 2026 the CJEU handed down its judgment in Fauré Le Page v Goyard ST-Honoré (C-412/24), clarifying when a trade mark incorporating a date can be considered misleading.
Background
Starting in the early 1700s, Maison Fauré Le Page of France bought and sold arms, ammunition and leather accessories, ceasing its activities just shy of three centuries later, in 1992. On its dissolution, its assets transferred to a shareholder. One of those assets was a French trade mark registration FAURÉ LE PAGE, registered for various weaponry but also “…leather and imitations of leather; trunks and suitcases…”
In 2009, a new company, Fauré Le Page, was set up and acquired the French trade mark. It then applied for the French marks FAURÉ LE PAGE PARIS 1717, covering amongst other things “…leather and imitations of leather; trunks and suitcases; travelling bags; handbags…”
So by that time, there had been “gap” of some 17 years or so in which the FAURÉ LE PAGE trade mark was used. Goyard subsequently applied to cancel the French FAURÉ LE PAGE PARIS 1717 registrations on the grounds that they were deceptive, they suggested continuous trade dating back to 1717, which was not the case.
The Paris Courts agreed at first instance on appeal, holding that the 1717 marks risked deceiving consumers into believing there had been continuity of operations since 1717 and that the know how of Maison Fauré Le Pageas had been transferred to Fauré Le Page, thereby acting as a guarantee of the quality of the goods protected by the marks.
Fauré Le Page appealed to the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), which asked the CJEU to clarify whether a fanciful date in a trade mark, conveying false information about the age, reliability, or know how of the manufacturer – and consequently on one of the intangible characteristics of the goods concerned – is sufficient to establish actual deceit or a serious risk of deceiving consumers under Article 3(1)(g) of the Trade Mark Directive.
The Judgement
The CJEU held that in order to find a mark is “…of such a nature as to deceive the public…” under that Article, it must relate to a characteristic of the goods or services covered by the mark. Accordingly, a mark cannot be refused registration or cancelled solely because it might deceive the public regarding a characteristic of its proprietor.
However, the CJEU also observed that quality is a characteristic of goods. And, since the goods in question fell within the luxury goods sector, where quality is assessed not only by goods’ material characteristics but also the allure and prestigious image that confer upon them their aura of luxury, deception within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) may also be found where a long-standing know how – and all the guarantee and aura of quality and prestige that involves – is claimed but does not actually exist.
The Impact
Whether a particular date is “deceptive” when used as part of a trade mark is a matter for national EU courts to determine on the particular facts before them. And the accusations levelled at Fauré Le Page seem a little harsh, in context – i.e. that a relatively short break in the continuous use of a mark several hundred years old is highly relevant. It might be said that most consumers purchasing luxury goods will know, somewhere at the back of their mind, that the mere mention of a date in the distant past does not necessarily mean a mark has been used without a break each and every single day over what can often be centuries!
Nevertheless, the CJEU’s ruling sends a clear message to luxury brands – leveraging historical dates or heritage in branding must reflect genuine continuity and transferred know how. Misrepresenting such a heritage can create a serious risk of consumer deception, potentially rendering a trade mark invalid.
Bear & Wolf acts for a range of clients in the luxury goods sector. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you wish to discuss anything regarding the judgement, or this article.