Two French luxury leather-goods houses, Goyard and Fauré Le Page, are locked in a dispute over whether the French trade marks “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” mislead consumers. Goyard, widely regarded as the oldest luxury leather goods maker still in operation, traces its roots back to 1792, and has challenged Fauré Le Page’s trade marks in relation to an even earlier founding date. After more than a decade of decisions and appeals, the Advocate General issued his opinion.

The dispute

“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”.

On 26 October 2012, Goyard ST-Honoré SAS (Goyard) initiated proceedings against Fauré, seeking, inter alia, a declaration of invalidity in respect of the “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” trade marks on the basis that they were likely to mislead or deceive the public.

The Advocate General (AG) opined that simply including a year, such as “1717”, in a trade mark does not, on its own, make the mark misleading or invalid. For invalidity based on deception, the sign must (at the filing date) convey a clear and sufficiently specific claim about the goods or services that is factually incorrect, something a bare year typically does not achieve.

According to the AG, deception must relate to a concrete characteristic of the goods or services (such as their nature, quality, or geographical origin), rather than the proprietor’s narrative (for example, the company’s age). However, he emphasised that revocation remains possible if, after registration, the way the mark is used misleads consumers.

Why this matters for UK businesses 

Although the UK has left the EU, EU trade mark jurisprudence continues to shape UK practice. It is worth noting that the AG’s opinion is not binding; the CJEU’s judgment will follow in due course, however, it provides useful guidance: incorporating a founding year in a trade mark (even if somewhat contentious) is unlikely to render it invalid unless it conveys a specific, objectively false claim about the goods or services at the time of filing.

However, brands should be cognisant of two practical risks:

1. Misleading use after registration
   A trade mark that was valid at registration can still be revoked if its use misleads consumers. For instance, suggesting that products were made by a historic manufacturer when they were not could expose a brand to liability.

2. Accuracy of heritage claims
   Brands leveraging heritage or craftsmanship narratives must ensure all claims are verifiable. Misrepresentation can lead to reputational harm and legal challenges under trade mark and consumer protection laws.

Key takeaway

In short, a date alone may not block registration but how that date is used in advertising, packaging, and online descriptions matters. If consumers are led to believe goods have an historic pedigree or continuity they do not possess, revocation risk rises.