Tradition sells well—especially when it comes to luxury goods, handicrafts, and fashion. However, including a historical year in a brand name can be legally risky: The European Court of Justice ruled in Case C-412/24 (“Fauré Le Page”; ECJ, judgment of March 26, 2026) that a trademark may be misleading if it falsely claims a long corporate history or special expertise.

What was the subject of the ECJ’s ruling?

The European Court of Justice had to rule on the “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” trademark. Behind the trademark was a French company that was founded as recently as 2009. It had acquired the “Fauré Le Page” trademark and subsequently filed trademark applications for leather goods bearing the addition “Paris 1717.”

For consumers, such a claim can give the impression that the brand has a long history, centuries of experience, and a tradition of craftsmanship. Especially when it comes to luxury leather goods, this impression can be a deciding factor in a purchase. After all, it’s not just the materials and craftsmanship that matter here, but also prestige, origin, and the brand’s unique image.

The competitor, Goyard ST-Honoré, challenged the trademarks. It argued that the year “1717” wrongly gave the impression that the company had been in existence since the 18th century and possessed expertise dating back to that time. In fact, however, there was no such unbroken corporate tradition.

Why can a year in a trademark be problematic?

Including a year in a trademark is not automatically prohibited. Many companies use their founding years, historical references, or traditional trademark elements. However, it becomes problematic if the information gives the public a false impression.

For a brand like “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717,” the number “1717” can be more than just a decorative element. It can be interpreted as a reference to the year the company was founded. Combined with the word “Paris” and a melodious brand name, this quickly creates the impression of a long-established, traditional company.

This is relevant from a legal perspective because a trademark must not be misleading. It must not mislead consumers regarding the essential characteristics of the goods or services. This may include not only objective characteristics such as material, origin, or composition. The perception of exceptional quality, prestige, or long-standing expertise can also be important in influencing a purchase decision.

What did the European Court of Justice rule?

The European Court of Justice clarified that a trademark containing a year may be misleading if the target audience interprets that year as an indication of a founding date far in the past. This is particularly true if it creates the impression that the company has a long tradition and expertise passed down through generations.

What matters here is not just what the trademark owner intended to convey. What matters is how the trademark is perceived by the target consumers. If, based on the year indicated, consumers assume that the trademark represents a long-established company with special expertise—even though this is not actually the case—the trademark may be misleading.

The ECJ also emphasized that, particularly in the case of luxury goods, quality is not limited to measurable characteristics. A brand’s appeal, prestige, and image can also contribute to its perceived quality. A fabricated tradition can therefore be of great economic value while at the same time posing legal challenges.

Why is this ruling important for German companies as well?

Although the decision concerns a French trademark dispute, it is also relevant for companies in Germany. The European Court of Justice interprets European trademark law. Its rulings therefore affect the assessment of trademarks throughout the European Union.

It is particularly important for German companies to note that, under German trademark law as well, marks may be excluded from registration or challenged if they are likely to mislead the public. This applies not only to classic misrepresentations but also to more subtle messages conveyed by a trademark.

So anyone who uses years, historical names, traditional terms, or phrases such as “since,” “established,” “anno,” or “tradition since” in their advertising should verify whether these claims are actually accurate. It’s not enough for a story to sound good for advertising purposes; it must also be verifiable. Our article “Common Pitfalls in Trademark Law” provides an overview of typical risks.

Which industries should be particularly vigilant?

Sectors in which tradition and heritage hold significant marketing value are particularly affected. These include luxury goods, fashion, leather goods, jewelry, watches, furniture, food, spirits, cosmetics, crafts, and artisanal products. In these sectors in particular, a historical year can have a strong influence on purchasing decisions.

This also applies to young companies that acquire an established brand. Acquiring a brand name does not automatically mean that the entire historical tradition, past expertise, or reputation of an established company has been taken over. It depends on the actual circumstances.

Misleading Trademarks: It All Comes Down to the Overall Impression

It is important not to view every single number or historical term in isolation. What matters is the overall impression of the brand. A year, when combined with other elements, can convey a specific message. In the case of “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717,” therefore, it was not only the numbers that played a role, but also the brand name, the reference to Paris, and the context of luxury leather goods.

For those without a legal background, the ruling can be summarized simply: A brand may not claim to have a centuries-old tradition behind it if such a tradition does not actually exist. Anyone who uses history in their advertising must also be able to substantiate that history.

What Companies Should Be Reviewing Now

The ECJ ruling makes it clear: Trademarks must not create false expectations. Anyone who advertises using an old year must be able to prove a genuine tradition. Otherwise, the trademark may be legally vulnerable—especially in the case of high-quality products, where origin, prestige, and trust play an important role.