In its judgment of 26 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified when trademarks incorporating historical dates may be considered misleading under EU trademark law.

The case concerned whether an inaccurate historical claim in a trademark may mislead consumers as to essential characteristics of the goods covered by that mark.

Background

The case arose from a trademark dispute between two French luxury leather goods manufacturers.

Maison Fauré Le Page had traded in weapons, ammunition and leather accessories in Paris since the eighteenth century. Its business ceased in 1992 and the company was dissolved.

Fauré Le Page Paris, a company established in 2009, acquired the “Fauré Le Page” trademark later that year. In 2011, it applied to register several trademarks incorporating the designation “Paris 1717” for, among other things, leather goods.

Its competitor, Goyard ST-Honoré, challenged those registrations: it argued that the reference to “Paris 1717” falsely suggested that Fauré Le Page had operated continuously for more than 300 years and possessed longstanding artisanal expertise.

Goyard’s action was initially unsuccessful. The Cour de cassation subsequently set aside that decision and remitted the case to the Cour d’appel de Paris. On remittal, the Court of Appeal declared the trademarks invalid on the ground that they created a serious risk of misleading consumers.

Fauré Le Page appealed that decision to the Cour de cassation.

The Cour de cassation then made a request for a preliminary ruling before the CJEU. It asked whether, under EU law, a historical date in a trademark may be misleading if it suggests that the business has longstanding know-how, adding to the goods’ prestige.

Historical dates as a promise of quality?

Protected designations of origin such as “Champagne”, “Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena” and “Parmigiano Reggiano” do more than indicate a product’s geographical origin. They also shape consumers’ expectations as to how to produce the goods and the quality they can expect from it.

Historical dates are not afforded comparable protection under European trademark law. Yet, when used as part of a trademark, they can convey far more than a mere reference to time.

A long-established business is often associated with extensive experience and craftsmanship continuously refined over many years. A trademark containing a historical date may therefore lead consumers to expect a particularly high-quality product.

This raises the question whether a long tradition or expertise passed down over many generations can itself be regarded as a characteristic of the goods. If so, inaccurate claims of that kind may, under Article 3(1)(g) of the Trademark Directive, prevent registration or render an existing registration invalid.

[Editorial note: The judgment was delivered under Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC, which applied at the time of the underlying dispute. The corresponding provision is now found in Article 4(1)(g) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436.]

When can a historical date be misleading?

The CJEU held that a trademark is not misleading simply because it incorporates an inaccurate statement about the age or history of its proprietor. Trademark law does not protect consumers against every possible misconception about a business.

The key question is whether consumers would understand the date as a sign of long-standing expertise that makes the goods seem more prestigious or of higher quality. If that know-how does not in fact exist, the trademark may mislead consumers as to an essential characteristic of the goods.

Whether a historical date gives rise to a sufficiently serious risk of deception can only be assessed by considering the circumstances of each individual case and the overall impression created by the trademark. In this case, the CJEU noted that the word “Paris”, as well as the overall message conveyed by the mark, had to be taken into account.

Furthermore, consumers must actually be misled or, at the very least, face a sufficiently serious risk of being misled. The assessment must be based solely on the message conveyed by the trademark itself.

Matters outside the mark, such as further statements made by the proprietor about its corporate history, cannot be taken into account.

Particular considerations in the luxury sector

The CJEU also emphasised that, particularly in the luxury sector, consumers’ perception of a product is not only shaped by its tangible features. Prestige, exclusivity as well as the tradition associated with a trademark may significantly influence both the perceived value of the goods and consumers’ willingness to buy them.

In the luxury sector, therefore, inaccurate claims about a company’s history may more readily give rise to a risk of deception that is relevant under trademark law.

Conclusion

The CJEU’s judgment shows that historical dates in trademarks may carry significance beyond their marketing appeal. Such references become legally problematic where they create the impression of longstanding expertise that does not in fact exist and where consumers understand that expertise as a promise of quality or prestige.

"The judgment is equally significant for (luxury) brands with a genuine long-standing heritage. It recognises that business continuity, and the customer trust that typically comes with it, have an independent commercial value. A business seeking to benefit from that trust by invoking its history should therefore be able to substantiate such claims." says Leon van Lee, lawyer specialising in luxury brands and Head of Gulf Desk.

It is now for the Cour de cassation to rule on the validity of the “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” trademarks in the light of the CJEU’s guidance. While the final assessment remains for the national court, the CJEU’s reasoning suggests that Goyard may ultimately succeed in its action, likely leading to the trademarks being declared invalid.

Status 18.08.2026