{"id":12226,"date":"2026-04-09T13:03:47","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T11:03:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/historyczna-data-w-znaku-towarowym-a-brak-kontynuacji-dzialalnosci-wyrok-tsue-w-sprawie-faure-le-page\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T06:27:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T04:27:03","slug":"historic-dates-in-trademarks-versus-a-lack-of-business-continuity-the-cjeu-ruling-in-faure-le-page","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/historic-dates-in-trademarks-versus-a-lack-of-business-continuity-the-cjeu-ruling-in-faure-le-page\/","title":{"rendered":"Historic dates in trademarks versus a lack of business continuity: The CJEU ruling in\u00a0Faur\u00e9 Le Page"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Can a luxury brand claim a multi-century history that it does not, in fact, continue? In its judgment of 26 March 2026 in case\u00a0C-412\/24 (Faur\u00e9 Le Page<\/em>)<\/strong>, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that including a number in a trademark, cited as an enterprise’s historic founding year, may mislead consumers regarding the quality and prestige of the goods. Consequently, this may constitute grounds for refusing registration or invalidating a trademark.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

“Paris 1717” \u2013 a tradition that does not exist<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The historic Faur\u00e9 Le Page<\/em> enterprise, which operated in Paris from 1716<\/strong> in the arms, ammunition, and leather accessories industry, was dissolved in 1992<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2009<\/strong>, a new company was established, which acquired the Faur\u00e9 Le Page<\/em> trademark. In 2011<\/strong>, it filed for registration of marks containing the designation “Faur\u00e9 Le Page Paris 1717”<\/strong>, this time for luxury leather goods: handbags, purses, and suitcases. A competitor in the same industry challenged these marks, seeking their invalidation. The case proceeded through several French instances before reaching the Court of Cassation, which referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did the Court decide?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It is not the history of the company, but the history of the production of goods that matters.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court, referring to its previous case law (judgment in C-59\/08 Copad<\/em><\/strong>), reiterated that in the luxury sector, the quality of a product also encompasses its presentation and prestigious image. This is a crucial finding. It means that a number in a trademark, perceived as a founding year, may evoke long-standing know-how that serves as a guarantee of quality and builds the product\u2019s prestige. If such know-how does not, in reality, exist, we are dealing with actual consumer deception, or at the very least, a sufficiently high probability thereof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final word rests with the national court<\/strong> The Court noted that the specific assessment rests with the national court, which should examine each mark as a whole, taking into account not only the number “1717” itself, but also the word “Paris” and the overall message conveyed to the average consumer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean in practice?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Faur\u00e9 Le Page<\/em> judgment serves as an important signal for entrepreneurs in the luxury and premium goods sector. Suggesting long-standing know-how in a trademark that does not exist carries a real legal risk of trademark registration refusal or invalidation.<\/strong> Under Polish law, the basis for refusing such a mark is Article 129\u00b9(1)(12)<\/strong> of the Industrial Property Law Act, while invalidation of a registered mark may be pursued under Article 164<\/strong> of the same Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, using such a designation in trade may constitute an act of unfair competition<\/strong> within the meaning of Article 10<\/strong> of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition, which prohibits the labelling of goods in a manner that may mislead customers regarding their quality or other essential characteristics. Since the CJEU has ruled that a fictional continuity of tradition may create a false impression of a product’s quality and prestige, the risk of such qualification is very real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment also serves as a warning to entities acquiring historic brands and attempting to exploit their former prestige without actual business continuity or know-how. Simply acquiring a trademark from a historic enterprise is insufficient to invoke its multi-year tradition.<\/strong> If there is no real continuity of production and transfer of know-how behind the mark, the use of a date suggesting such continuity may be deemed misleading to consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Creating a false impression among consumers that goods are manufactured based on long-standing know-how dating back to the year indicated in a trademark is not an innocent marketing ploy. In the luxury sector, a prestigious image is an element of quality, and its groundless creation can lead to the invalidation of a trademark. Judgment C-412\/24<\/strong> clearly confirms this principle and aligns with the consistent CJEU line of case law protecting consumers against such practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawyers at Jab\u0142o\u0144ski Ko\u017ami\u0144ski & Partners<\/strong> have for years advised clients on intellectual property law, including proceedings regarding the registration, protection, and challenging of trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you need support in assessing the risks associated with your trademark? Contact us.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Can a luxury brand claim a multi-century history that it does not, in fact, continue? In its judgment of 26 March 2026 in case\u00a0C-412\/24 (Faur\u00e9 Le Page), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that including a number in a trademark, cited as an enterprise’s historic founding year, may mislead consumers regarding…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12112,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[279],"tags":[],"obszary-praktyki":[149],"ppma_author":[351],"class_list":["post-12226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-alert","obszary-praktyki-media-law-personal-rights"],"acf":[],"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":279,"label":"Legal alert"}],"obszary-praktyki":[{"value":149,"label":"Media law & personal rights"}]},"featured_image_src_large":["https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2026-GRAFIKI-JKLAW_blog-36-1024x576.png",1024,576,true],"author_info":{"display_name":"Administrator","author_link":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/author\/administrator\/"},"comment_info":0,"category_info":[{"term_id":279,"name":"Legal alert","slug":"legal-alert","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":279,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":75,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0","cat_ID":279,"category_count":75,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Legal alert","category_nicename":"legal-alert","category_parent":0}],"tag_info":false,"authors":[{"term_id":351,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"stanislaw-marzec","display_name":"Stanis\u0142aw Marzec","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/JKLAW-800x1200-px_avatar-SM-2.png","url2x":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/JKLAW-800x1200-px_avatar-SM-2.png"},"first_name":"Stanis\u0142aw","last_name":"Marzec","funkcja":"","telefon":"","job_title":"","linkedin":"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/stanislaw-marzec\/","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12226"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12226\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12228,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12226\/revisions\/12228"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12226"},{"taxonomy":"obszary-praktyki","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/obszary-praktyki?post=12226"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jklaw.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=12226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}