In a case that could have significant implications for how luxury brands deploy heritage in marketing, the European Union’s highest court is preparing to clarify the legal limits of historical brand claims. Ahead of a decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), expected in 2026, Advocate General Emiliou has issued a pointed advisory opinion in a dispute that pits Goyard against fellow French leather-goods house Fauré Le Page.
The Background in Brief: The lawsuit centers on Fauré Le Page’s use of the year “1717” in its trademarks. While the company was established in its current form in 2009, the brand traces its heritage to Maison Fauré Le Page, a Parisian arms maker that was founded in the early 18th century and that ceased operations in the 1990s. Against that backdrop, Goyard argues that Fauré Le Page’s inclusion of “1717” implies a level of continuity, artisanal know-how, and prestige that does not exist, misleading consumers and violating both EU and French trademark law – and rendering the marks invalid.
Lower courts initially sided with Fauré Le Page, but the Cour d’appel de Paris reversed course, finding that the “1717” trademarks were likely to deceive consumers. In 2024, France’s Cour de cassation referred the dispute to the CJEU, asking for guidance on how EU law applies to this type of heritage-based branding.
A Legal Test for Luxury’s Origin Stories
Now, in an advisory opinion, AG Emiliou concludes that Fauré Le Page’s use of “1717” does not render its trademarks invalid under EU law unless the reference conveys a false and concrete claim about the products, themselves. The relevant legal test, he explains, turns on whether the allegedly deceptive element (“1717) here) relates to Fauré Le Page’s goods/services or its historical narrative.
Fauré Le Page has argued that “1717” functions as a storytelling element rather than as a statement about manufacturing methods or product quality. Goyard has countered, arguing that in the luxury segment, heritage claims routinely operate as warranties of authenticity and artisanal continuity, meaning that dates often act as implicit promises of expertise that consumers may take at face value.
In his November 27 opinion, the AG draws a clear boundary: Article 3(1)(g) of EU trademark law – which prohibits registration of marks likely to deceive consumers as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of goods – is not meant to police brand mythology unless it crosses into product deception. As such, he determined that the mere presence of the year in Fauré Le Page’s branding does not imply continuity and that it does not “constitute such a sufficiently specific designation.”
A Win for Heritage-Inspired Storytelling
Although the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding, the CJEU typically follows the guidance of its AGs. For luxury brands, the takeaway is meaningful. Fashion and accessories houses routinely rely on marketing messaging steeped in heritage – historic ateliers, revived archives, implied craftsmanship; and the narratives are often evocative rather than strictly substantiated. The AG’s opinion affirms that such legacy-driven storytelling remains permissible under EU trademark law as long as it does not misrepresent the actual characteristics of the goods being sold.
At the same time, the ruling draws an important distinction: while Article 3(1)(g) may not support invalidation, trademarks could still face revocation after registration if their real-world use becomes misleading, such as if branding falsely suggests ongoing involvement by a defunct predecessor. Moreover, even where trademark law offers no remedy, misleading heritage claims may still trigger liability under national consumer protection or unfair competition rules.
If adopted, the ruling will reaffirm that trademarks are meant to indicate commercial origin – not to police brand narratives – and they become problematic only when they misrepresent the nature or characteristics of the underlying goods/services. For fashion and luxury brands, the takeaway is straightforward: heritage-based marketing remains permissible, so long as it does not cross into materially misleading product claims.
THE READ BETWEEN THE LINES: For Goyard, which got its start in 1853, the stakes go to the core of its brand identity: its claim to be France’s oldest continuously operating trunk-maker, a distinction that underpins its mystique, pricing power, and competitive positioning in the luxury market. In an industry where heritage functions as a proxy for authenticity and expertise, a date like “1717” is not merely decorative, it signals seniority, continuity, and artisanal legitimacy.
By seeking invalidation of the Fauré Le Page trademarks, Goyard aims to put a stop to what it views as the dilution of heritage as a meaningful commercial differentiator and to enforce a stricter standard, one that limits heritage-centric claims to demonstrable expertise, rather than to revived corporate history, alone.
The case is Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS v Goyard ST-Honoré SAS, Case C‑412/24.
Share
