“Since 1717” When Heritage Becomes Misleading In Trademark Law

Fashion’s long‑standing fondness for expressions such as “Since 1717” has now met judicial scrutiny.

In March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that a trademark can be deceptive when an old date embedded within the sign itself leads consumers to believe in centuries old know‑how and prestige that do not, in fact, exist (CJUE, Fauré Le Page vs. Goyard ST-Honoré, C-412/24, 26 March 2026). It can justify refusal or invalidity under EU law. National courts must now do the hard, fact‑specific work.

The ruling arose from a referral for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation in the long‑running dispute between Goyard and Fauré Le Page over the validity of FAURÉ LE PAGE PARIS 1717 trademarks to designate luxury leather goods (take a look at our previous blog to find out more).

The CJEU was asked to interpret Article 3(1)(g) of the now‑repealed, but applicable Trademarks Directive No 2008/95 under which a sign is “of such a nature as to deceive” if, taken as a whole, it misleads the relevant public about a characteristic, “for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service”.

The court clarified that the misleading element must relate to a characteristic of the goods and confirmed that “quality” extends beyond physical attributes.

In line with the Copad v Christian Dior decision, the perception of “quality” includes the aura and prestige associated with long‑standing craftsmanship, particularly in luxury markets. For prestige goods, perceived quality derives as much from image and heritage as from materials. Accordingly, references such as “since 1717”, when incorporated into a mark, may function as implied quality claims. An antique‑looking date may convey heritage and expertise. If fictitious and understood as indicating a founding year conferring quality and prestige, the mark may be refused or invalidated for deceptiveness. No intent to mislead is required — actual deception or a sufficiently serious risk is sufficient.

The assessment remains contextual, to be conducted by the national court having regard to the overall impression created by the sign – including accompanying elements such as “Paris”- market conditions and consumer perception within the relevant sector.

With the legal test now set, national courts must assess whether “1717”, in context, is perceived as a founding year that deceptively suggests transmitted know‑how and therefore misleads the public for luxury leather goods.

This matters greatly to luxury brands to which heritage is product‑facing. The ruling signals across the EU that rescuing, reviving, or acquiring a venerable name does not entitle a brand to inherit centuries of craft in its trademark.

Practical takeaways for brand owners

• Audit any embedded founding dates in house marks. If there is no substantiated continuity of business activity and transmission of know-how aligning with the year, there is a real invalidity risk of deceptiveness across the EU.
• Expect fact‑heavy litigation. National courts will probe how the target public reads the date, the role of luxury storytelling in purchase decisions, and whether the supposed heritage truly underpins perceived quality and prestige.
• Evidence of continuous and genuine exploitation and craft lineage will be critical. Rather than gathering evidence reactively when a challenge is brought, brand owners with legitimate heritage should compile and maintain a standing dossier, including corporate genealogies, historical trade directories, and continuous manufacturing evidence that can be deployed swiftly in opposition, invalidity, or litigation proceedings.
• When unsure, prefer using the founding date in general communication rather than embedded within the trademarked sign.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.