Can a historical year in your brand name lead to the invalidity of your trademark?

The use of a fictitious or inherited founding year in a trademark name can lead to the invalidation of that trademark. The Court of Justice ruled in a ruling of March 26, 2026 that such a year could mislead consumers about the quality and prestige of the goods on offer, especially in the luxury sector. This means that brands that falsely suggest a centuries-old tradition risk their legal protection.

The facts

In a long-running legal dispute, the luxury brand Goyard and the companies Fauré Le Page faced each other. The original company Maison Fauré Le Page was founded in 1716 and engaged in the sale of arms and leather accessories. However, this company was dissolved in 1992 and operations ceased.

A newly formed company took over the brand name in 2009 and registered two new brands in 2011, including “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717,” specifically for luxury leather goods. Goyard, a competitor in the travel goods and leather goods sector, thereupon claimed the invalidity of these marks because they would mislead the public.

The decision of the Court of Justice

The central question of law turned on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(g) of directive 2008/95/EC. This provision states that trademarks may not be registered - or may be declared invalid - if they are “ of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service".

The Court of Justice ruled that a trademark may be effectively misleading within the meaning of this provision if it contains a number which is perceived by the public as referring to the year of foundation of a company, without any such long-standing craftsmanship. This is particularly true when "that year is in the distant past, long-standing know-how bestowing a perceived guarantee of quality and a prestigious image on the goods for which the mark is registered".

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is an important refinement of trademark law. Although the deceptive nature of a mark must relate primarily to the characteristics of the goods or services (and not merely to the characteristics of the trademark owner), the Court here builds a bridge between the history of the manufacturer and the quality of the product.

To this end, the Court relies on previous case law, such as the Copad ruling, from which it follows that the quality of luxury goods is determined not merely by their material characteristics, but also by their “allure and prestigious image.” The referring court correctly noted that consumers of luxury leather goods attach great importance to the history of a company. Creating the illusion of centuries-old craftsmanship thus results in an unwarranted guarantee of quality for the product itself.

In the Belgian context, this regulation finds its application through Article 2.2bis(g) of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP). The ruling makes clear that heritage-washing - the artificial creation or adoption of a historical family tree without actual, unbroken continuity - is contrary to public policy and an absolute ground for nullity.

What this specifically means

This ruling has significant practical implications for various actors in the market:

• For companies in mergers and acquisitions (M&A): Merely taking over a historic trademark does not automatically give you the right to claim the original timeline. If the company has gone bankrupt in the past or operations have been idle for years, there is no transfer of actual craftsmanship. Due diligence in the field of intellectual property henceforth requires strict monitoring of trademark history.
• For the luxury and fashion industry: Brands that flaunt years such as “Est. 1850” or “Since 1920,” must prove that the year reflects an authentic, uninterrupted history of the company. If there is a fictitious claim that affects the consumer's purchasing decision, the validity of the mark is at risk.
• For competitors: This ruling provides a strong handle for taking action against competitors who falsely use a prestigious past to gain an unfair market advantage.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Can I use the founding year of an acquired historic brand in my new branding?
Yes, but only if there is an actual continuity of business and associated craftsmanship. If the original business was dissolved and you revive the brand name years later, the use of that historic year may be misleading to consumers and result in the invalidity of your trademark.

Do these strict regulations apply only to expensive luxury products?
Although this ruling revolved specifically around the luxury leather goods market - a sector where prestige and tradition are crucial to perceptions of quality - its impact extends beyond that. Any mark that creates misleading expectations about the inherent quality, nature or quality of the product offered by means of a fictitious year is at risk under the vigor of the deception ban.

Conclusion

Including historical years in brand names is not a casual marketing strategy in Belgium, but requires an actual, unbroken link to the past. A false claim about ancient craftsmanship can result in the trademark being misleading, resulting in the refusal or cancellation of the trademark registration.