Can a trade mark mislead consumers by implying a historical expertise that does not exist, or by suggesting that a well-known designer was involved in the design of the products? In two recent judgements, the Court of Cassation has clarified the circumstances under which such practices may result in the invalidity of a trade mark or the loss of rights to it.
In two judgements handed down on the same day – which were eagerly awaited by trade mark proprietors – the Court of Cassation has ruled, following two decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), on the conditions under which a trade mark may be declared invalid on the grounds that it is misleading (Fauré Le Page, CJEU, 26 March 2026, C-412/24) or be subject to revocation where it has become misleading as a result of its use (Pmjc, CJEU, 18 December 2025, C-168/24).
« Fauré Le Page Paris 1717 » (Com., n° 22-11.499)
Goyard ST-Honoré is seeking the cancellation of the ‘Fauré Le Page Paris 1717’ trade marks, arguing that they are likely to mislead the public as to the company’s long history and expertise. The Court of Cassation has ruled in its favour and confirmed that the trade marks are invalid.
➡️ According to the CJEU, a trade mark containing a number that could be perceived as the year a business was founded may be misleading if it suggests the existence of long-standing expertise – a guarantee of quality and prestige for the goods – when in fact no such expertise exists.
➡️ …
