France's Supreme Court Confirms Invalidity for Deceptiveness: Dates Suggesting False Heritage Can Mislead Consumers

Background of the Decision

The historic Fauré Le Page house, founded in 1716, operated in Paris as an arms business supplying the French royal court. Dissolved in 1992, it transferred its assets—including the "Fauré Le Page" trademark, filed in 1989—to Saillard, its sole shareholder. Fauré Le Page Paris SAS, a company incorporated in 2009, acquired the trademark the same year and filed two semi-figurative "Fauré Le Page Paris 1717" trademarks for luxury leather goods in 2011. Goyard, a leather-goods house claiming continuous operation since 1792, sued in 2012 to invalidate them on deceptiveness grounds, arguing that "1717" created a false impression of centuries of accumulated craftmanship when, in reality, no operational link existed between the applicant and the existing business.

After the Paris Court of Appeal initially dismissed Goyard's invalidity claim, the French Supreme Court set aside that decision. On remand, the Paris Court of Appeal invalidated both marks on November 23, 2021, finding that "Paris 1717" evoked an unbroken continuity of operations and implied transfer of know-how that the consumers viewed as quality guarantee. The French Supreme Court then referred questions under Article 3(1)(g) of Directive (on deceptive trademarks) 2008/95/EC to the CJEU, which answered them on March 26, 2026 (Case C-412/24, Fauré Le Page), as discussed in our earlier Commentary, "CJEU Rules that Dates Suggesting False Heritage Can Mislead Consumers."

Key Aspects of the Ruling

Application of the CJEU Standard for Deception as to Quality in the Luxury Sector. Applying the CJEU's preliminary ruling, the French Supreme Court held that Article L. 711-3(c) of the French Intellectual Property Code, which prohibits trademarks prone to deceive the public as to the quality of goods, must be interpreted in light of the luxury sector's specificities: Prestige and perceived quality associated with claimed longevity may characterize the goods themselves, not merely their proprietor.

Endorsement of the Paris Court of Appeal's Reasoning. The French Supreme Court endorsed the Paris Court of Appeal's assessment of the two trademarks, based on three findings: (i) "Paris 1717" evoked the business's place and date of establishment; (ii) the trademarks suggested continuous leather-goods operations since 1717 and transfer of the former house's know-how to the current proprietor—circumstances that consumers viewed as a guarantee of quality; and (iii) the historic house ceased operations in 1992 and had sold arms and ammunition, not leather goods. Fauré Le Page Paris did not pursue that business, and there was no continuity of operations or transfer of leather-goods know-how.

Approving the Paris Court of Appeal's ruling, the French Supreme Court held that its findings established not merely a sufficiently serious risk of deception but actual deception of the public as to the quality of the luxury leather goods covered by the trademarks' registration.

Rejection of the Appellant's Arguments. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments that deception must concern the goods rather than the qualities of the trademark owner, as well as the argument that luxury consumers accept revived historical brands.

As to the argument that Fauré Le Page could present itself as the successor of the former house by virtue of its trademark purchase, the French Supreme Court held that a lack of continuity of operations or an absence of transfer of expertise rendered that argument ineffective, an assignee cannot claim the original proprietor's history and know-how. It dismissed the remaining arguments under the CJEU standard.

Conclusion

The French Supreme Court's September 23, 2026, decision confirms the CJEU's central ruling: In the luxury sector, claimed longevity can shape perceived product quality, and false centuries-old know-how may support invalidity. Purchasing a prestigious name does not confer a history without continuity of operations or a genuine transfer of expertise. Because deceptiveness is assessed at the filing date, based on the sign as a whole and the owner's actual history, businesses should verify any historical reference before filing or acquiring a trademark, audit existing portfolios, and anticipate competitors' challenges.