A heated legal battle in France is about to reshape how we understand trademark law across the European Union, and it all hinges on a deceptively simple question: Can a trademark mislead consumers by implying a heritage it doesn’t actually have? This case, now in the hands of the EU’s highest court, could set a precedent that affects brands far beyond luxury leather goods. But here’s where it gets controversial: Does a trademark’s impression on consumers depend solely on the product itself, or should the company’s history and reputation also be part of the equation?
The dispute pits two French luxury brands, Fauré Le Page Paris SAS (FLP Paris) and Goyard ST-Honoré SAS (Goyard), against each other. Goyard argues that FLP Paris’s use of the ‘1717’ mark falsely suggests a centuries-old legacy, even though the company was founded in 2009. FLP Paris, however, acquired the rights to the ‘Fauré Le Page’ trademark—a brand with roots dating back to 1716—from a dissolved company. The question now is whether this historical association is misleading under EU trademark law, which prohibits marks that deceive the public about the nature, quality, or origin of goods.
And this is the part most people miss: The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Nicholas Emiliou, has issued a non-binding opinion that leans toward FLP Paris. According to Emiliou, simply including a year in a trademark—even if it’s not the actual founding year of the current owner—isn’t enough to invalidate the mark. Instead, he argues, the mark must deceive consumers about a specific characteristic of the goods or services themselves, not the company behind them. This narrow interpretation has sparked debate among legal experts.
Brand protection expert Fabian Klein of Pinsent Masons disagrees with Emiliou’s stance. He argues that trademarks serve multiple functions—indicating origin, guaranteeing quality, and advertising—and that separating the characteristics of the goods from the company’s reputation feels artificial, especially in the luxury market. “Consumers don’t think in silos,” Klein explains. “When they see a high-end product, they’re buying into both the item and the brand’s story. Ignoring that connection could undermine the very purpose of trademark law.”
Klein also points out an intriguing counterpoint: Even if the CJEU rules in FLP Paris’s favor, the use of the ‘1717’ mark could still be challenged under unfair competition laws in countries like Germany, where misleading claims about a company’s history are prohibited. This raises a broader question: Should trademark law and competition law align more closely to protect consumers from deceptive branding?
As the CJEU prepares to issue its formal judgment in the coming months, the outcome could redefine how trademarks are assessed across the EU. Will the court prioritize the literal characteristics of goods, or will it acknowledge the intangible value of a brand’s narrative? And what does this mean for companies that build their identity on historical associations? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—do you think a trademark should be judged solely on the product, or should the company’s story matter too?
