Does Your Brand Tell a Story? Make Sure It’s True!

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” trademark is likely to set an important precedent: a trademark relying on a fictitious historical heritage must be regarded as a misleading trademark.

A brief look back in time…

The story begins in 1716, when Maison Fauré Le Page was founded in Paris as a royal gunmaker specialising in firearms and leather accessories.

For almost three centuries, it embodied exceptional craftsmanship, until the business was dissolved in 1992.

In 2009, a new company acquired the trademark and reinvented the brand by positioning itself as a luxury leather goods manufacturer.

Two years later, it registered two trademarks containing the words “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717”.

Its competitor, Goyard Saint-Honoré, then brought legal proceedings seeking to have those trademarks declared invalid.

According to Goyard, the reference to “1717” was misleading because it suggested uninterrupted business activity since the 18th century and centuries-old expertise that a company established in 2009 could not legitimately claim.

Following several conflicting decisions in France, the French Court of Cassation referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether a reference to a historical legacy that does not reflect the actual economic reality could justify the invalidity of a trademark on the ground that it is misleading.

Can you buy a history? The CJEU says: not without paying the price.

In its judgment of 26 March 2026 (C-412/24), the Court established a clear framework based on Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC*:

• General principle: a trademark is misleading and may be declared invalid where it misleads the public as to a characteristic of the product, such as its nature, quality or geographical origin.
• Misleading indication of quality: a trademark must be declared invalid where the reference to a year of establishment conveys an impression of quality and prestige based on long-standing expertise that does not in fact exist.
• Concept of “intangible quality”: in the luxury sector, the quality of a product is not limited to its physical characteristics but also includes its image, appeal and prestige.
• Broader scope: any trademark using an element, such as a date, to mislead consumers as to the reality of its products and/or services could fall within the scope of this case law.

Expected consequences for trademarks protected in the European Union

As trademark protection is both essential and potentially fragile, this decision demonstrates that competitors have an effective tool that may be used at any time to challenge exclusive commercial rights or destabilise a competitor.

As the judgment was delivered in response to a request for a preliminary ruling, its interpretation is binding on courts throughout the European Union and has significant implications for trademark strategies across the Single Market.

Broader concept of deceptiveness: the misleading nature of a trademark is not limited to the physical characteristics of a product but also extends to intangible attributes such as heritage and historical legitimacy.

Overall assessment: courts must examine the overall message conveyed by the trademark in order to determine whether there is a risk of consumers being misled.

Limits on brand storytelling: brands, particularly luxury brands, cannot claim a prestigious history without risking the invalidity of their trademark rights where that narrative is based on inaccurate information.

Caution when filing trademarks: companies must exercise particular care when incorporating dates or historical references into their trademarks, or risk having those rights challenged by competitors.

The validity of a trademark is an issue that must be considered throughout the entire life of a business, not only at the time of registration.

What should businesses do now?

This decision is a useful reminder that any business seeking to protect its assets should consider putting in place a structured trademark protection strategy, including, for example:

• An audit to identify the assets being used, assess their distinctiveness, search for earlier rights and identify potential conflicts with third parties;
• Trademark monitoring and competitive intelligence to track similar applications and developments in case law;
• Portfolio management to manage renewals, assignments and licences, and identify vulnerabilities throughout the life of the business.

➡️ For any questions relating to IP/IT matters or, more specifically, trademark law, please contact Mathilde Wazana Moock or Nicolas Thieltgen.