{"id":193164,"date":"2026-04-01T11:44:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T09:44:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/luxus-plus.com\/?p=193164"},"modified":"2026-04-01T16:29:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T14:29:20","slug":"goyard-v-faure-le-page-case-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-rules-in-favor-of-goyard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/luxus-plus.com\/en\/goyard-v-faure-le-page-case-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-rules-in-favor-of-goyard\/","title":{"rendered":"Goyard v. Faur\u00e9 Le Page Case: The Court of Justice of the European Union Rules in Favor of Goyard "},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent ruling, the CJEU held that a recent trademark that refers to an earlier year of the company\u2019s founding\u2014and thereby implies long-standing expertise\u2014is likely to mislead the public. It thus upheld decisions by the Paris Court of Appeal declaring the trademarks \u201cFaur\u00e9 le Page Paris 1717\u201d \u201cvoid on grounds of deceptiveness.\u201d<\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Luxury industry players were eagerly awaiting the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)<\/b> in the case pitting the leather goods manufacturers Goyard and Faur\u00e9 Le Page<\/b> against each other.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Founded in Paris in 1853, Goyard contested Faur\u00e9 Le Page\u2019s right to use the date 1717 in its communications<\/b>. While the company uses the name Faur\u00e9 Le Page, the original arms manufacturer\u2014founded in Paris in the early 18th century\u2014ceased operations and was dissolved in 1992.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Faur\u00e9 Le Page was relaunched in 2009 as a leather goods brand by Augustin Liffort de Buff\u00e9vent<\/b>, a former executive at Dior<\/b> in the United States. However, while the original gunsmith also offered hunting-related leather goods (cases, shoulder straps, game bags, etc.), its product line did not include bags as fashion accessories.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Significant Turning Point<\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

Referred to the Court of Cassation, the CJEU was tasked with resolving the dispute. It recently issued a ruling on March 26, highlighting the misleading nature of such a claim. This decision \u201creignites the issues surrounding historical heritage in the luxury sector,\u201d according to the law firm August Debouzy<\/b>, which sees it as \u201ca particularly significant turning point in the luxury world<\/b> where an image of prestige is decisive.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTo continue reading this article, subscribe or log in to your account<\/b><\/a>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Discover our plans<\/p> \r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t