CJEU: Trade mark including number likely to be perceived as indicating year of establishment, can be deceiving
10-04-2026 Print this page
Trade mark that includes a number which is likely to be perceived as indicating the year of establishment of a business can be deceiving to the public (article 3(1)(g) Directive 2008/95). A number which is perceived by the relevant public as the year of establishment of a business may evoke particular know-how, which is seen as a guarantee of the quality of the product covered by that mark and contributes to bestowing a prestigious image on it. In absence of such quality and image, actual deceit or sufficiently serious risk of deceit may be found. Accordingly, the ground for refusal of registration and invalidity set out in Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95 cannot be applied in cases where the mark at issue is of such a nature as to deceive the public in relation to a characteristic of its proprietor and not in relation to a characteristic of the goods or services which it covers.
Case C-412/24 Fauré Le Page v Goyard
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC. Directive 2008/95 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 15 January 2019, by Directive (EU) 2015/2436 ('Trade Marks Directive') to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. However, taking into account the date of the facts in the main proceedings, Directive 2008/95 remains applicable.
The request has been made in proceedings between Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS and Fauré Le Page Paris SAS, on the one hand (together: 'Fauré Le Page'), and Goyard ST-Honoré SAS, on the other, concerning the validity of two national trade marks of which Fauré Le Page Paris is the proprietor: the Fauré Le Page Paris 1717 trade marks. Goyard seeks cancellation of those trade marks on the ground that they are deceptive.
The Parisian Court of Appeal held that the words ‘Paris 1717’ in the contested marks were such as to lead the public to believe that there had been continuity of operations since 1717 and that the know-how of the original undertaking had been transmitted to Fauré Le Page Paris, which constituted, for the relevant public, a guarantee of the quality of the goods covered by those marks. The French Court of Cassation held that such an interpretation can be compatible with article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95.
However, IPPT20060330 ECJ Emanuel may be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is not of such a nature as to deceive the public if the allegedly false information which it conveys concerns the undertaking which manufactures the goods and not the goods themselves. Still, the Court the Cassation notes that the judgment cannot necessarily be extended beyond the particular cirumstances of that case, namely a trade mark consisting of the name of a designer.
In those circumstances the Court of Cassation decided to refer the following preliminary questions:
(1) Must Article 3(1)(g) of [Directive 2008/95] be interpreted as meaning that a reference to a fanciful date in a trade mark conveying false information on the age, reliability and know-how of the manufacturer of the goods and, consequently, on one of the intangible characteristics of those goods is sufficient to establish the existence of actual deceit or a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived?
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must that article be interpreted as meaning:
(a) that a trade mark may be regarded as deceptive where there is a likelihood that consumers of the goods and services designated by the trade mark will believe that the proprietor of that trade mark has been producing those goods for centuries, thereby conferring on them a prestigious image, whereas that is not the case?
(b) that, in order to establish the existence of actual deceit or a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived, on which a finding that a trade mark is deceptive depends, the trade mark must constitute a sufficiently specific designation of potential characteristics of the goods and services for which it is registered, so that the targeted consumer is led to believe that the goods and services possess certain characteristics which they do not in fact possess?’.
According to the Opinion of the Advocate General, a fanciful year in trademark is no ground for invalidity.
Decision CJEU:
31 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a trade mark includes a number which is likely to be perceived by the relevant public as indicating the year of establishment of a business and evokes, because that year is in the distant past, long-standing know-how bestowing a perceived guarantee of quality and a prestigious image on the goods for which the mark is registered, even though no such long-standing know-how actually exists, it may be inferred that that mark is of such a nature as to deceive the public, within the meaning of that provision
