The CJEU “1717” Decision: When Brands Lie About Their History
A founding year in a brand name works like a seal of authenticity: it promises tradition, craftsmanship, and trust built over generations. But what happens when that promise doesn’t hold up? In its decision of 26 March 2026 (Case C-412/24 [PDF]), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) drew a clear line in the dispute between Fauré Le Page and Goyard: those who advertise with history must be able to prove it.
What Was the Fauré Le Page vs. Goyard Case About?
Both houses operate in the luxury leather goods and travel accessories segment, a market where provenance and history make up a substantial share of brand value. At the core was the question of whether the year “1717” carried in the trademarks of Fauré Le Page — a company actually founded in 2009 — suggested a continuous corporate heritage that does not exist in that form.
The CJEU assessed not the beauty of the brand story, but its capacity to mislead. What mattered was the impression formed by an average, reasonably well-informed and observant consumer.
The Central Holding of the Decision
The key takeaway: a year in a trademark can be deceptive under EU trademark law (Art. 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC) — but only if it misleads consumers about a characteristic of the goods themselves, such as quality or prestige.online.
The main guiding points:
- A year is not merely decorative; it can convey a factual claim about a brand’s age and continuity.
- Deception over the mere identity of the proprietor is not enough — the misleading impression must relate to the goods’ qualities or prestige.
- A simple historical reference (for example, a same-named predecessor without continuous legal or commercial succession) does not justify the year.
- Crucially, the CJEU did not issue a final ruling on cancellation; it referred the case back to the French Cour de Cassation to apply these principles.
Why This Matters Beyond Luxury Goods
Founding years as trust anchors appear across every industry — from breweries and fashion houses to cosmetics brands. Wherever “since 1717” or “founded in…” is used as a quality signal, the decision creates new due-diligence obligations.
A telling example: a young company acquires the naming rights to an 18th-century manufacturer that ceased trading and places that founding year in its mark. Under the CJEU’s logic, the name transfer alone is not enough — and if consumers are led to believe the goods carry centuries-old prestige they do not have, the mark may face cancellation for deception.
Practical Consequences for Brand Practice
- Before adding a year to a trademark, document genuine historical continuity (legal succession, uninterrupted business activity).
- Audit existing marks containing years for deception risk, especially after acquisitions, insolvencies, or revivals of defunct brands.
- Tie marketing and trademark counsel closely together so that heritage claims do not become a target for cancellation actions.
- Monitor competitors in the same segment — the decision opens a new line of argument in invalidity and opposition proceedings.
Conclusion
The “1717” decision shifts the boundary between permissible storytelling and unlawful deception noticeably toward factual accuracy — yet it ties any deception to the qualities or prestige of the goods, not merely to corporate identity. Heritage remains a powerful selling point, but only when the story behind the year was actually lived. For brand owners the message is clear: you may tell your heritage, but you may not invent it.
