The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has now delivered its judgment in Goyard v Fauré Le Page, bringing to a close a long‑running dispute between two French luxury leather goods houses over the use of a historic founding date within a trade mark.
In our earlier article, Heritage branding and deceptive marks: Goyard v Fauré Le Page, we explored the Advocate General’s opinion. This final decision provides important clarification for fashion and luxury businesses that rely on history, craftsmanship and provenance as core elements of their brand identity.
While the judgment confirms that heritage branding can be a powerful commercial asset, it also underscores a critical warning: heritage claims embedded within a brand name or trade mark must be genuine, accurate and capable of substantiation.
The background
“Fauré Le Page Paris” (Fauré) was established in 2009. That same year, Fauré acquired the trade mark rights to the name “Fauré Le Page” from Saillard, a company that had previously obtained those rights from Maison Fauré Le Page, a historic business founded in 1717 that ceased operations in 1992. In 2011, Fauré filed trade mark applications for “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717”.
Goyard, widely regarded as one of the oldest luxury leather goods houses still in continuous operation, challenged those registrations. It argued that the inclusion of “1717” would lead consumers to believe that the modern Fauré Le Page business had been operating continuously for centuries and that its products therefore benefited from inherited craftsmanship and historic know‑how.
The court’s decision
In its judgment of 26 March 2026, the CJEU held that a trade mark may be invalid where it is liable to mislead the public by implying a level of historic continuity, expertise or prestige that does not in fact exist.
A central aspect of the court’s reasoning is its recognition of how luxury markets function. The court accepted that, in the luxury sector, purchasing decisions are not based solely on objective or technical qualities. Instead, they are strongly influenced by intangible factors such as heritage, exclusivity, reputation and perceived craftsmanship. A founding year presented as part of a brand name may therefore be interpreted by consumers as an implicit indication of long‑standing know‑how and enduring quality.
Where such an implication is materially inaccurate, the trade mark itself may be considered deceptive. This is the case even if the mark does not expressly state that the business has operated continuously since the historical date in question.
Why this matters particularly in the luxury sector
The court emphasised that, for luxury goods, perceived quality encompasses far more than raw materials or manufacturing processes. Prestige, aura and history are often integral to how value is created and communicated. As a result, statements or suggestions embedded within trade marks are likely to be taken seriously by consumers and may meaningfully influence purchasing decisions.
This means that, in luxury markets, a reference to an early founding date may amount to an implicit representation about the goods themselves, rather than merely about the corporate history of the brand owner. Where consumers infer that a product benefits from centuries‑old craftsmanship, and that inference is incorrect, the risk of invalidity arises.
A contextual and fact‑specific assessment
Importantly, the court did not suggest that the use of historic dates is inherently problematic. Instead, it confirmed that each case must be assessed on its own facts. National courts are required to consider how the mark is perceived by the relevant public, whether the date is understood as a founding year, whether it evokes long‑established expertise or prestige, and whether those impressions correspond to reality.
The assessment must take the mark as a whole into account, including surrounding elements such as references to place, language and the nature of the goods in question.
Implications for fashion and luxury businesses
Although the UK is no longer part of the EU, this judgment is likely to influence UK practice, given the close alignment between UK and EU trade mark principles and the continuing relevance of EU case law in this area.
For luxury brands, the decision highlights that heritage positioning is not solely a marketing consideration. Where heritage claims are built into a trade mark itself, their accuracy may affect the very validity of the registration. Acquiring an old brand name or reviving a historic label does not, without more, justify implying centuries‑old continuity or inherited know‑how. Courts will look beyond stylistic cues and assess whether there is genuine substance behind the story being told.
Businesses acquiring heritage brands should be alive to this risk, and careful transactional drafting can be vital. In particular, the scope and validity of assignments, together with appropriate warranties, indemnities and contractual recourse, should be considered at an early stage.
That said, the position might differ where the acquisition involves genuine commercial continuity, such as subsisting goodwill, reputation, or historic assets including archives, designs or manufacturing know‑how. These factors may strengthen the basis for heritage positioning but it does not automatically justify implying uninterrupted history or inherited craftsmanship.
Consumer perception is likely to be an important factor in the analysis. Even where goodwill or assets are acquired, a trade mark may still be deceptive if it leads consumers to believe the business has operated continuously since the historic date, where that is not true in substance. Courts will look to the reality of continuity, not the scope of the acquisition.
The judgment also serves as a reminder of the importance of regular brand review. As businesses evolve, expand or are restructured, elements of branding that once appeared benign such as dates, slogans or origin references, may warrant closer scrutiny.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s decision does not restrict genuine heritage brands from celebrating their history. Rather, it reinforces a principle that resonates strongly within the luxury sector: authenticity matters. Where a trade mark suggests historic pedigree, courts may expect that suggestion to be accurate. If it is not, the legal and reputational consequences can be significant.
For fashion and luxury businesses, the key message is a straightforward one: heritage can elevate a brand, but only where it reflects a verifiable and defensible reality.
