In Re VETEMENTS GROUP AG
23-2050
| Fed. Cir. | May 21, 2025Background
- Vetements Group AG applied to register the trademark "VETEMENTS" (French for "clothing") in both standard and stylized forms for clothing goods and related online retail services.
- The USPTO Examining Attorney refused registration, finding the marks generic or merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness.
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusal, applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents to translate "VETEMENTS" to "clothing."
- Vetements appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging both the substance of the genericness/descriptiveness findings and the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents.
- Central to the case is whether an "ordinary American purchaser" would translate "VETEMENTS," and if so, whether the marks are thus unregistrable.
Issues
| Issue | Vetements' Argument | PTO's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of doctrine of foreign equivalents | "Ordinary American purchaser" would not translate; French not commonly known | Sufficient Americans know French to warrant translation | Doctrine applies if an appreciable number would translate |
| Genericness/descriptiveness of "VETEMENTS" | Even if translated, "clothing" is not generic for specific items | "Clothing" is the generic name for the goods/services identified | Mark is generic for these goods/services |
| Proof of acquired distinctiveness | Mark has acquired distinctiveness via sales/exposure | No sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness | No acquired distinctiveness shown |
| Whether stylization/design makes the mark distinctive | Stylized form creates a unique commercial impression | Design does not separate from generic meaning | Design does not add distinctiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, 782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (articulates the test for genericness in trademark law)
- Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (the doctrine of foreign equivalents is a guideline for whether a consumer would translate a non-English mark)
- In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (standard of review and analysis for genericness)
- In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (generic terms cannot indicate source or be registered as trademarks)
- Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel & Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (a term in a foreign language that names the goods is generic and unregistrable)
- Bart Schwartz Int’l Textiles v. FTC, 289 F.2d 665 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (foreign descriptive terms cannot be registered for the products they describe)