Sara Notario , 28 avril 2026

On 26 March 2026, the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in Case C‑412/24 following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation, France (Cour de cassation, France) concerning the interpretation of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on trade marks. The dispute arose between Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS and Fauré Le Page Paris SAS on one side, and Goyard ST-Honoré SAS on the other. The case concerned the validity of registered trade marks as far as the descriptive characteristics may be misleading. The disputed sign, which included the element “Paris 1717”, suggested historical continuity and tradition. However, Fauré Le Page Paris is registered on 14 October 2009. Goyard ST-Honoré SAS brought the claim before the court to cancel the registered trade mark on the basis that such elements may mislead consumers.

Although Directive 2015/2436 replaced Directive 2008/95/EC on 15 January 2019, the present case was assessed under the earlier directive, as the relevant trade mark was registered on 17 June 2011. Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95 provides that trade marks shall not be registered, or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid, where they are of such a nature as to deceive the public, particularly as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services. Under Article 288 TFEU, directives are binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved, leaving national authorities discretion in form and method. French law, in Article L-711-3(c) of The Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle), lays down that signs which are likely to deceive the average consumer regarding the nature, quality, or origin of goods or services are prohibited.

Maison Fauré Le Page was established in 1717 and incorporated under French law. The company was originally engaged in the sale of arms, ammunition and leather accessories. On 27 November 1992, the company was dissolved and the assets were transferred to the sole shareholder, the company Saillard, who became the owner of the French trade mark ‘Fauré Le Page’. In 2011, the trade mark rights, which cover weapons, ammunition, explosives, leather and imitations of leather and trunks and suitcases, were transferred to the Fauré Le Page companies. They filed for registration of the trade mark “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” covering, inter alia, leather goods and travel accessories.

Goyard ST-Honoré, which produces travel and leather goods, brought proceedings before the court against the Fauré Le Page companies. Goyard sought the cancellation of the trade mark “Paris 1717” because of its misleading descriptive nature, in so far as it could lead to the general public’s perception of long-standing quality and tradition. The first instance dismissed the claims. On 4 October 2016, the Court of Appeal, Paris (Cour d’appel de Paris) also dismissed the appeal brought by the plaintiff. By judgment of 27 June 2018, the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation de France) set aside that judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, stating that the trade mark may be invalid if there is a risk of misleading the consumer. The Court of Appeal held that the contested mark “Paris 1717” obviously evokes the date and the place of the establishment of the company, which guarantees an average consumer long-standing quality and tradition. The respondent appealed before the Court of Cassation on a point of law. The Fauré Le Page companies claimed that a registered trade mark may be considered misleading if it misleads consumers regarding the qualities or attributes of the goods that it covers, whereas the proprietor’s characteristics may not deceive consumers. In so far as the findings of the Court of Appeal are that the relevant public perception is that the descriptive nature of the trade mark leads to high quality and centuries-long traditions. The average consumer of luxury goods will base their purchase on the prestige of the brand. In those circumstances, the Court of Cassation decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling regarding Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95. The first question is regarding the date that falsely suggests the manufacturer’s long history. Is there a high risk or real deception of misleading the consumer? If not, the court asks whether the trade mark is considered misleading when it creates the impression that the manufacturer has a long history, which creates the impression of a prestigious brand. Additionally, whether the trade mark must specifically suggest the false features of goods or services to mislead consumers.

The Court of Justice highlighted that the main point is whether the trade mark misleads the relevant public. This should be assessed by national court from the point of view of the average consumer of luxury leather goods. Consumer’s perception in the luxury sector is heavily influenced by brand image rather than purely factual indications. The national court is responsible to consider any risk of deception that comes directly from the registered sign. The Court of Justice clarified that the trade mark could mislead the consumer not only about qualities, but also about the company itself, which includes the history and the reputation of the owner. In this context, a date such as “1717” may be perceived as a long-standing tradition of manufacturing. In this case, for the luxury goods market, historical continuity is often associated with prestige.

This case illustrates that legal provisions should be interpreted in a flexible manner, requiring consideration of all the specific circumstances of the case. In particular, it is essential to take into account the perception of the average consumer within the relevant market. The Court demonstrates flexibility on the one hand, while at the same time implicitly limiting the practical application of its reasoning to sectors where brand image plays a central role. The judgment emphasises the perception of the average consumer, thereby highlighting the importance of the subjective element, rather than focusing on the objective characteristics of the sign or the attributes of the producer.

Reproduction autorisée avec la référence suivante : Neda Milosavljevic, The Year in a Registered Trade Mark Indicates a Long-Standing Quality and Prestigious Brand Image, actualité n° 9/2026, publiée le 28 avril 2026, par le Centre d’études juridiques européennes, disponible sur www.ceje.ch