Background
Fashion designer [D] [L] founded a company bearing his name in 1978. After that company entered insolvency proceedings, Pmjc acquired all its assets under a 2011 judicially approved bid and a 2012 transfer agreement. The acquired assets included the French word marks “[D] [L]” and “JC [L].” The designer continued working with Pmjc under a services agreement that expired on December 31, 2015.
In 2018, Pmjc sued the designer, alleging trademark infringement and unfair and parasitic competition arising from professional and artistic activities conducted through [L] Creative. The designer counterclaimed for revocation of Pmjc’s trademark rights, arguing that Pmjc’s use of the marks between late 2017 and early 2019 had become deceptive. In 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal revoked the marks for specified products and services and rejected Pmjc’s unfair-competition claims.
On Pmjc’s appeal, the Court of Cassation rejected one ground in 2024 and referred a question concerning deceptive trademark use to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU answered in Pmjc, C-168/24, on December 18, 2025, after which the Court of Cassation decided the remaining grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Court rejected Pmjc’s challenge to the revocation of its trademark rights. Applying the CJEU’s interpretation, it held that EU trademark law permits revocation of a mark consisting of a fashion designer’s surname when, considering all relevant circumstances, its use by or with the consent of the proprietor is liable to cause the reasonably informed and observant average consumer to believe incorrectly that the designer participated in creating the marked products. The earlier Emanuel ruling did not establish the categorical rule asserted by Pmjc.
The Court nevertheless partially quashed the judgment as to Pmjc’s claim for damages based on unfair competition through disparagement. It stated that, absent a judicial decision finding copyright infringement, merely informing third parties of possible infringement constitutes disparagement of the accused products. The Court of Appeal had treated letters sent by the designer’s lawyer to two Pmjc partners as legitimate without finding that the alleged infringements identified in those letters had resulted in infringement judgments.
The Court therefore vacated only the rejection of Pmjc’s damages claim for unfair competition and remanded that issue to a differently constituted panel of the Paris Court of Appeal. The trademark revocation was left undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- A fashion designer’s surname mark may be revoked when its use misleads the average consumer into believing that the designer participated in creating the marked products.
- The transfer of a designer-name mark and its associated business does not categorically shield the mark from later revocation for deceptive use.
- Telling commercial partners that products may infringe copyright constitutes disparagement when no judicial decision has established the alleged infringement.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies the limits on exploiting trademarks built around a creator’s identity after the mark and business have been transferred. The decisive question is not simply whether consumers associate the name with its original creator, but whether the proprietor’s actual use falsely suggests the creator’s involvement in the products’ design.
The decision also imposes a strict constraint on pre-judgment infringement communications to third parties. Rights holders and their counsel risk unfair-competition liability if they characterize products as infringing before a court has established infringement.