For consumers of luxury goods, a date featured in a trademark often indicates, or appears to indicate, the year a business was founded. Such dates often evoke a sense of heritage, tradition and accumulated expertise, leading consumers to associate the brand with a reputation for craftsmanship developed over generations. But to what extent must those historical claims be accurate before a trademark risks being considered deceptive?

In its judgment delivered on 26 March 2026 in Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS and Fauré Le Page Paris SAS v Goyard ST‑Honoré SAS (Case C‑412/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) (the "CJEU" or the "Court") addressed an important question concerning deceptive trademarks under Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC. Specifically, the Court examined whether a trademark containing a historical date can be invalidated where that date wrongly conveys the impression of centuries-old know-how and heritage, thereby enhancing the perceived quality and prestige of luxury goods.  

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from trademarks registered by Fauré Le Page Paris SAS incorporating the sign "Fauré Le Page Paris 1717" for luxury leather goods, including handbags, travelling bags and luggage. The trademarks were registered in 2011.

Historically, Maison Fauré Le Page had operated in Paris since 1716, engaging in the sale of arms, ammunition and leather accessories. However, that company was dissolved in 1992 and its assets were transferred to another entity. In 2009, Fauré Le Page Paris SAS, a newly incorporated company, acquired the earlier "Fauré Le Page" trademark and subsequently launched luxury leather goods under the "Fauré Le Page Paris 1717" branding.

Goyard ST‑Honoré SAS, a competing luxury leather goods manufacturer, challenged the validity of the trademarks before the French courts on the ground that they were deceptive. It argued that the inclusion of "1717" misled consumers into believing that the business had continuously operated since the eighteenth century and possessed centuries of accumulated expertise and craftsmanship.  

By judgment of 23 November 2021, the Paris Court of Appeal ultimately held that the marks were invalid because they created a serious risk that the consumer would be deceived. It concluded that consumers would perceive the words "Paris 1717" as indicating a longstanding business history and continuity of know-how from the original undertaking, when no such continuity in fact existed. The matter eventually reached the French Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), which referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.  

Legal Issue

The central issue was the interpretation of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC, which prohibits registration of trademarks that 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."

The referring court sought clarification on whether a trademark can be considered deceptive where it contains a historical date suggesting longstanding experience or know-how, and whether misleading claims about the age of the business may amount to deception concerning the characteristics of the goods themselves.  

Considerations of the Court

The Court began by reiterating that invalidity under Article 3(1)(g) requires either actual deception or a sufficiently serious risk of deception. The assessment must focus on deception inherent in the sign itself rather than on the subsequent conduct of the trademark proprietor.  

The Court further confirmed that the provision generally concerns deception relating to characteristics of the goods or services covered by the mark. It emphasised that misleading statements about the proprietor alone are not normally sufficient to trigger invalidity.

However, the Court drew an important distinction in the context of luxury goods. It accepted that certain information about a business, such as its history and heritage, may influence consumers' perceptions of the quality and prestige of the products themselves. Referring to its earlier judgment in Copad (C‑59/08), the Court recalled that the value of luxury goods does not depend exclusively on their physical attributes, but also on their allure and prestigious image, which confer upon them an aura of luxury.

Against that background, the Court recognised that a date appearing in a trademark may be perceived by consumers as the year in which a business was established. Where that date evokes longstanding know-how and craftsmanship, consumers may regard it as a guarantee of quality and authenticity. Such perceptions can become particularly important in luxury sectors, where heritage and tradition are often key purchasing factors.

The Court therefore held that a false claim of historical continuity can amount to deception regarding product quality where the alleged heritage is directly linked to the prestige and perceived characteristics of the goods. In those circumstances, the misleading representation concerns more than the proprietor's history; it affects consumer perception of the products themselves.

The Court nevertheless stressed that the assessment remains fact-specific. National courts must consider the trademark as a whole and determine whether the relevant public genuinely perceives the date as indicating the establishment of the business and as conveying longstanding know-how. Particular attention should be paid to the overall message conveyed by the sign, including accompanying elements such as the word "Paris".

Conclusion

The Court held that Article 3(1)(g) must be interpreted as meaning that where a trademark contains a number likely to be understood as indicating the year of establishment of a business, and that date evokes longstanding know-how conferring a perceived guarantee of quality and prestige upon the goods, the mark may be regarded as deceptive if such longstanding know-how does not in fact exist.

Accordingly, a trademark that falsely suggests centuries of experience, craftsmanship or heritage can be invalid where those representations materially influence consumer perceptions of product quality.

The judgment acknowledges that, particularly in the luxury sector, the distinction between the attributes of the undertaking and those of the goods is not always clear-cut. Heritage, craftsmanship and tradition frequently form part of the commercial identity of luxury products and may influence purchasing decisions as much as the products' physical characteristics.

For brand owners, the decision serves as a warning against overreliance on historical narratives that cannot be substantiated. Trademarks containing dates, references to historical establishments or claims of longstanding expertise may now face increased scrutiny where consumers are likely to interpret those elements as guarantees of quality or prestige.

More broadly, the judgment reflects the Court's willingness to recognise modern marketing realities and the importance of intangible product attributes in luxury markets. It confirms that trademark law protects consumers not only against deception concerning tangible product features but also against misleading claims concerning heritage and prestige where those qualities form part of the product's perceived value.

Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing to this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report. 

Francesca Vassallo is an Advocate at Ganado Advocates.

Directive 2008/95 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 15 January 2019, by Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks. However, taking into account the date of the facts in the main proceedings of the case, Directive 2008/95 remained applicable.