Luxury sells two things. The object, and the story of who made it and for how long. A bag from a workshop that has been cutting leather since the 18th century feels different from one made by a company that opened last decade, even when the hide and the stitching are identical. Brands know this. It is why so many labels carry a date.
On 23 September 2026, France’s highest court decided that one of those dates had gone too far. The Cour de cassation upheld the cancellation of two “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” trademarks, closing a case Goyard started in 2012. The court’s reasoning, as reported by The Fashion Law, was that the marks were likely to make shoppers believe Fauré Le Page had run a leather goods business since 1717 and inherited the know-how that comes with it. It had not. The company behind today’s brand was set up in 2009.
Here is how a year turned into a legal problem, and why brands well beyond Paris should pay attention.
The real 1717
The house behind the Fauré Le Page name was real, and genuinely old. It was founded in Paris in 1717 as a maker of firearms and swords, held royal warrants under Louis XV, and over the following two centuries supplied French kings and Napoleon. Alongside the weapons it made holsters, gun bags and other leather accessories. The historic business stopped trading in 1992.
The 2009 revival
In 2009 a new company acquired the rights to the Fauré Le Page name, which had passed to another owner after the original house closed. It relaunched the name as a luxury leather goods brand, with a painted scale-pattern canvas and a pitch aimed at the same customer who might otherwise walk into Goyard. In 2011 it applied to register trademarks that put the old founding year front and centre: “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717”.
Buying a dormant name is perfectly legal. Luxury does it all the time. The real question in this case was whether you can buy the name and also borrow its birthday.
Goyard’s argument
Goyard, founded in 1853 and one of the oldest trunk and leather houses still operating, went to court in 2012. Its case was simple. Put “1717” next to a brand name and shoppers read it as a founding year. Read it as a founding year and they assume three centuries of unbroken craft. That assumption was false, so the marks were deceptive.
The Paris Court of Appeal agreed in 2021 and invalidated the marks. Fauré Le Page appealed to the Cour de cassation, which paused the case and asked the Court of Justice of the European Union how EU trademark law should treat it.
What the EU’s top court said
The CJEU answered on 26 March 2026 in Case C-412/24. This is the part every brand lawyer should read.
The starting rule. A trademark is deceptive when it misleads the public about the goods themselves, for example their nature, quality or geographical origin. In principle, a misleading claim about the company that owns the mark is a different thing and falls outside that rule.
The twist. Information about the company can still mislead about the product if consumers draw conclusions about its quality or prestige from it. In luxury, the court accepted, quality is not only the leather and the stitching. It also covers intangibles such as prestige, brand image and know-how. A founding year shown as part of a brand name can therefore work as an unspoken promise of long-standing skill and lasting quality. If that promise is materially untrue, the mark can be deceptive even though it never says “in continuous operation since 1717” in words.
The limit. The court refused to ban historic dates outright. National courts have to look at the actual mark as a whole, at whether the relevant public really reads the year as a founding date, and at whether the impression it creates matches reality.
With that guidance in hand, the Cour de cassation closed the case on 23 September and the two marks stay cancelled. The brand still trades under the Fauré Le Page name. What it has lost is the right to register 1717 as part of it.
Why this matters beyond one Paris label
1. Reviving sleeping houses is a luxury business model
Bringing dormant names back to life is a well-worn strategy. Moynat, Schiaparelli, Patou and Poiret have all been revived by new owners in recent years. Nothing in this ruling says any of them did anything wrong, and none of them were part of this case. What the ruling does is set the test a revived brand’s heritage story can be measured against: is there genuine continuity of business, craft or know-how, or is it a purchased name with a borrowed date?
2. Trademarks are only one place a date appears
This case was about registrations. The logic travels much further, to the “Our History” page, the packaging, the hangtags, the campaign copy. In the EU, heritage claims in marketing can also be tested separately under consumer protection rules against misleading commercial practices. A date that would sink a trademark is a date worth checking everywhere else too. If you are clearing a new brand name, our step-by-step guide to trademarking a clothing brand and the Global Trademark Search Directory are good places to start.
3. Buying a brand does not buy its history
For anyone acquiring a heritage name, this is a due diligence point. Look at whether the target’s marks lean on a founding year, whether the business can document real continuity, and what warranties and indemnities cover the risk of those marks being challenged. An invalidated mark is treated as if it was never validly registered, however long it has been on the register. As Stevens & Bolton notes, acquiring assets, archives or designs alone does not justify implying an uninterrupted history.
4. Outside the EU
UK courts are no longer bound by the CJEU, but UK trade mark law grew from the same rules, and the judgment is likely to be persuasive there. In the US, the Lanham Act already refuses registration to deceptive matter and gives competitors a false advertising route. The specific facts will differ, but a “since” date that is not true is a familiar risk in every major market, which is one more reason fashion needs an international IP strategy and brand protection lawyers who think across borders.
A quick checklist for brands using a date
- Ask what you are telling shoppers happened between then and now, not just whether you can trace a line back to the date.
- Check whether you can document continuous activity: the same craft, the same workshops, the same people or skills.
- If there is a gap, say so. “Founded in 1717, reborn in 2009” is honest and still romantic.
- Review trademarks, packaging, website and advertising together, not one at a time.
- In acquisitions, diligence the heritage claims and cover them in the contract.
The take
Heritage is luxury’s most valuable intangible, and that is exactly why courts now treat it as part of the product. This ruling does not stop anyone reviving an old name. It stops them pretending nobody ever turned the lights off.
This column is commentary and analysis, not legal advice.
FASHION LAW JOURNAL INSIDER
Join designers, brand founders and fashion lawyers who get the biggest brand battles, IP fights and career moves in fashion law, straight to their inbox.
