Fauré Le Page has lost a trademark battle with Goyard over its use of “1717” branding, bringing the latest chapter in a nearly 14-year fight between the French luxury brands to a close. In a newly-issued decision, France’s highest court upheld the invalidation of two “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” trademarks on the basis that they were likely to mislead consumers into believing that its leather goods benefit from generations of craftsmanship and expertise. At the heart of the fight is a particularly valuable piece of luxury currency: history.
The case got its start in 2012 when Goyard filed suit against Fauré Le Page over its use of “1717” on leather goods. Goyard – which was founded in 1853 and describes itself as France’s oldest leather-goods brand – argued that “1717” suggests a longstanding history that the modern company does not possess. While Fauré Le Page draws on the history of Maison Fauré Le Page, a historic arms and leather-accessories business, the modern Fauré Le Page brand was established in 2009.
Luxury’s Founding-Date Dilemma
The Cour de cassation’s September 23 decision follows from a March ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). The CJEU held that when consumers perceive a date as the year a business was established, the mark may be deceptive if that date suggests longstanding know-how – and resulting quality and prestige – that the business does not actually possess.
The CJEU left it to the French court to apply that test to Fauré Le Page’s “1717” marks – and now, the Cour de cassation has upheld a 2021 appellate ruling that they are deceptive. The French appeals court found that “Paris 1717” is likely to make consumers believe that Fauré Le Page has operated a leather-goods business since 1717 and inherited the corresponding know-how.
Fauré Le Page’s claim to “1717” – which is no longer prominently featured on its website – effectively positioned the modern company as a centuries-old luxury house, leapfrogging Goyard’s 1853 founding date by more than a century. At the same time, its patterned totes and other leather goods bear more than a passing resemblance to Goyard’s offerings, creating competitive overlap that almost certainly added fuel to Goyard’s fight over Fauré Le Page’s heritage claims.
The issue is hardly isolated. Historical dates are ubiquitous in luxury branding, where they can serve as shorthand for heritage and craftsmanship, even though the relationship between the date and the modern business is not always straightforward.
Officine Universelle Buly, for example, draws on the history of perfumer Jean-Vincent Bully, whose Paris shop dates to 1803, while the current business opened in 2014. TWG Tea celebrates “1837,” the year it says Singapore became a trading post for tea, while stating that TWG Tea was founded in 2008. Bacha Coffee traces its story to 1910 and the Dar el Bacha in Marrakech, which it says closed after World War II before the brand was revived.
Brands with substantially different histories also lean heavily on founding dates. Breguet traces its history to 1775 and describes more than 250 years of “uninterrupted” watchmaking, while Blancpain traces its history to 1735 and describes itself as the world’s oldest watch brand.
None of these examples necessarily run afoul of the rule in Goyard v. Fauré Le Page, but they illustrate why the case matters. A historical connection to an earlier business is not the same as centuries of continuous craftsmanship or expertise. What matters is what the date communicates to consumers – and whether a company can substantiate the continuity its heritage claims imply.
THE STRATEGY: For brands that use historical dates or other heritage claims, counsel should assess not merely whether a historical connection supports the date but what the branding communicates about the modern business – including whether it implies continuous operation, inherited know-how, or craftsmanship that the company cannot substantiate.
That assessment should extend beyond trademarks to websites, packaging, advertising, and brand histories. For companies built around revived or acquired heritage, the practical question is not simply “Can we trace our history to this date?” but “What are we telling consumers happened between then and now?”
Share
