Background
The historic Fauré Le Page business, established in 1716, sold weapons, ammunition, and leather accessories until its dissolution in 1992, when its assets passed to its sole shareholder, Saillard. Saillard had registered the French word mark “Fauré Le Page” in 1989 and transferred it in 2009 to a newly incorporated company, Fauré Le Page [Locality 1].
In 2011, that company registered two French marks containing “Fauré Le Page [Locality 1] 1717,” including for leather goods, luggage, travel bags, and handbags. Competitor Goyard ST-Honoré sought cancellation on the ground that the marks were deceptive. After an initial appellate ruling for Fauré Le Page was quashed in 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal, deciding on remand in 2021, cancelled both marks. The Court of Cassation then referred questions concerning Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which answered them in March 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed Fauré Le Page’s appeal and upheld the cancellation. Applying the CJEU’s interpretation, it held that a mark may deceive the public when it contains a number perceived as the company’s founding year and thereby suggests longstanding expertise, quality, and prestige that do not in fact exist.
Viewed as a whole, the marks led the relevant public to believe that the modern leather-goods business had operated continuously since 1717 and had inherited centuries-old expertise from the historic house. But the former business ceased operations in 1992, and the company formed in 2009 had acquired the earlier mark without continuing the former enterprise’s activity. The resulting deception concerned the quality of the covered luxury leather goods because consumers were induced to believe that their manufacture embodied longstanding expertise serving as a guarantee of quality and prestige.
Key Takeaways
- A founding-year reference can make a trademark deceptive when consumers understand it to signify longstanding expertise that the business does not possess.
- Ownership of an historic name or earlier trademark does not itself establish continuity of operations or transmission of the former business’s know-how.
- Misleading claims about a company’s history may concern product quality when they cause consumers to attribute heritage-based craftsmanship, quality, and prestige to the goods.
Why It Matters
The ruling confirms that French deceptive-mark analysis reaches heritage branding that creates a false product-quality message, not merely false statements about a trademark owner’s corporate identity. Businesses reviving dormant brands must therefore substantiate any claimed continuity of operations or inherited expertise conveyed by founding dates and similar historical references.