April 2026
Brands and Advertising
CJEU issues judgment on trade marks using heritage numbers
On 26 March 2026, the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C-412/24, Fauré Le Page, on Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC concerning when a trade mark is deceptive. In this case, the mark concerned was 'Fauré Le Page Paris 1717’, used in relation to luxury leather goods.
The Court held that the deception ground must relate to a characteristic of the goods or services, and not merely to a characteristic of the trade mark proprietor.
A number in a mark that is likely to be perceived as an establishment year may, for luxury goods, evoke long-standing know-how that conveys a perceived guarantee of quality and a prestigious image. If that know-how does not exist, the mark may be deceptive.
The Court interpreted Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC and stated that deception requires a likelihood of misleading the relevant public about characteristics such as quality, including luxury allure and prestigious image.
The national court must assess the perception of the marks as a whole, including the term “Paris”.
For more information on deceptive trade marks, see our quick guide from Elena Glengarry and Louise Popple, here.
General Court issues judgment on EU trade mark V12X invalidity
On 18 March 2026, the General Court delivered its judgment in MAN Truck & Bus SE v EUIPO, Case T-108/25, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal decision declaring the EU word mark V12X invalid for Class 7 engines and parts for boats, ships and stationary applications.
The Court confirmed that screenshots and website links can be admissible evidence under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, and that the mere possibility of online manipulation or later inaccessibility of a link is insufficient to undermine credibility without concrete indications of falsification.
The Court held that the Board of Appeal could admit evidence filed for the first time on appeal under Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, where it was prima facie relevant and supplementary.
The Court found the V12X word mark to be descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) because V12 denotes a V-configuration 12-cylinder engine and X was used by the proprietor to convey “next”, “extra” and “excellent”, and rejected the Article 17 Charter property-rights challenge.
For more on descriptive trade marks, see our article by Louise Popple, here.
Court of Appeal of Versailles rules on use of BIRKIN and HERMÈS on bags
On 25 March 2026, the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled on trade mark infringement claims by Hermès International and Hermès Sellier against Sherine Orient concerning bags sold in-store and on Instagram.
The court held that the phrases “My Hermès is at home” and “While waiting for my Birkin” on bags constituted use in the course of trade of identical signs for identical goods, and therefore trade mark infringement in France.
It overturned the first-instance rejection of infringement of the word marks BIRKIN No. 97691016 and HERMÈS No. 1558350, and held that the message did not prevent taking unfair advantage of the marks’ reputation.
For more on trade mark infringement and reputation, see our Brands Update here.
