Vetements’ ironic branding play may have resonated with the fashion crowd, but it is too literal to register as a trademark. That is what the U.S. government argues in a newly-filed brief, urging the Supreme Court to reject Vetements Group AG’s bid for it to intervene in a case over the VETEMENTS name. The filing, which was submitted by the U.S. Solicitor General, doubles down on the argument that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) was right to refuse registration because “vetements” is simply the French word for the very goods it aims to brand.
The crux of Solicitor General John Sauer’s November 21 opposition brief: “Registering ‘Vetements’ for clothing and clothing stores would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of a trademark, which is ‘to indicate the source of the goods’ and avoid consumer confusion.”
The Background in Brief: The clash stems from Vetements’ attempt to register its name for use on clothing and “[o]nline retail store services for” clothing in the U.S. The USPTO rejected the application in 2021, finding that “vetements” – the French word for “clothing” – is generic when translated into English. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision, applying the “doctrine of foreign equivalents,” which requires foreign terms to be translated into English before assessing whether they are distinctive enough to warrant protection. For Vetements, the result was clear: if the mark translates to “clothing,” it is descriptive at best.
At stake is whether U.S. law should continue to treat foreign terms through the lens of direct translation, or whether it should align more closely with modern trademark principles focused on consumer perception.
A “Textbook” Trademark Case
Calling the case “a textbook application” of settled law, the government’s brief defends the USPTO and the Federal Circuit’s reliance on the doctrine of foreign equivalents, which requires foreign-language marks to be translated when assessing registrability. Because “vetements” means “clothing,” the government argues the mark is “categorically ineligible” under the Lanham Act.
The doctrine, the brief maintains, protects consumers and fair competition. Registering VETEMENTS in the U.S. would be akin to a foreign country granting trademark rights over the word “clothing,” creating marketplace distortions and disadvantaging American brands abroad.
Responding to Vetements’ claim that most U.S. consumers would not translate the term and would therefore perceive it as distinctive, the government asserts that French is widely taught and understood, particularly in fashion contexts. Labeling “vetements” a basic French word, the brief concludes that the mark is “generic at worst and descriptive at best.”
Even under a descriptiveness analysis, the government says Vetements failed to show acquired distinctiveness. Citing the TTAB, it emphasizes that the mark was found “merely descriptive” and lacking secondary meaning. Finally, the brief rejects arguments for Supreme Court review, pointing to consistent application of the doctrine by multiple circuits and dismissing reliance on Menendez v. Holt, which involved a mark unrelated to the product itself and thus offers no support for protecting foreign-language terms that directly name the goods.
Vetements’ Reply
In a December 5 reply brief, Vetements criticizes the Federal Circuit for using a rigid approach to the doctrine of foreign equivalents, one that sidelines the Lanham Act’s focus on how U.S. consumers actually perceive trademarks. Rather than requiring the USPTO to show that American shoppers would translate “VETEMENTS” when encountering it in the market, Vetements claims that the court is shifting the burden onto the brand to prove they would not. In doing so, Vetements argues that the court is blocking registration of its mark without evidence of how consumers actually understand a trademark.
Vetements also challenges the court’s conclusion that, despite fewer than one percent of Americans speaking French, consumers would still translate the mark into English. In other words, the brand argues that the court simply assumed that consumers would translate the word rather than requiring proof that they actually do. Vetements further disputes claims that “vetements” is a widely understood French word, noting that no evidence supports that position.
In short: Vetements claims that there is no reason to think U.S. consumers would see the term as descriptive as opposed to a distinctive brand name.
Finally, Vetements pushes back on the government’s apparent consumers about how registration of the mark would affect foreign markets and competition at home. The brand points out that the mark is already registered in several English-speaking countries and emphasizes that U.S. trademark law still allows competitors to use descriptive terms in ordinary, non-trademark ways.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The case – and the latest filings – are not just about Vetements. It sends a clear message to international brands that foreign-language marks do not offer an automatic path to registration in the U.S. If a mark is generic in translation and likely to be recognized as such, it does not matter how clever the branding. The USPTO – and the courts – are scrutinizing how brands use language in their marks. And in a global market, brands need to be just as attuned to the legal implications.
The case is In re: Vetements Group AG, 23-2050 (Fed. Cir.).
Share
