Goyard, the French luxury leather goods brand founded in 1853, has filed a claim against Faure Le Page, for its inclusion of “1717” in its branding. The basis of the claim is that the inclusion of “1717” in Faure Le Page’s trade marks falsely implies that the brand was founded in 1717, which suggests a level of long standing know-how which Goyard state it does not possess given that it was established in 2009.
Initially, the Court sided with Faure Le Page. However, upon appeal in the Cour d’appel de Paris, this decision was reversed. The Cour d’appel found that the inclusion of “1717” was in fact likely to deceive consumers and was therefore contrary to French trade mark law. The dispute was also referred to the CJEU with the Cour de Cassation asking the CJEU for guidance as to how EU law applies to “heritage” branding. Advocate General Emiliou of the CJEU gave an advisory opinion in 2025, suggesting that references to dates such as Faur Le Page’s inclusion of “1717” was only an issue where the reference is made to products themselves.
In its decision of 26 March 2026, the CJEU clarified the EU test applicable to assessing whether heritage-based branding is deceptive under Article 3(1)(g). The Court disagreed with AG Emiliou, stating that in the luxury market specifically, product characteristics can encompass less tangible elements like prestige. The key question in establishing whether heritage branding is deceptive is whether the relevant public believes that the date included is indicative of the founding date of the business. If the date implies that the goods created by the brand are made from centuries of expertise when they are not, they may be considered deceptive. It was, however, emphasised that this must be assessed on a case by case basis. In this instance, Faure Le Page’s inclusion of the word ‘PARIS’ next to “1717” increased the likelihood of deception. It is, however, important to note that the CJEU did not find Faure Le Page’s marks invalid, but instead left the ultimate decision to the French courts based upon its findings.
The case shows that where heritage branding is used in the context of luxury goods, it can be indicative of quality and prestige and falls within the scope of preventing consumer deception under trade mark law.
If you have any questions on the above, or if you need any advice or support in respect of your own Intellectual Property, please do not hesitate to contact the team at McDaniels Law on 0191 281 4000 or legal@mcdanielslaw.com.
