The Court of Cassation had referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to clarify the scope of the concept of a misleading trade mark under European trade mark law.

In its Fauré Le Page judgment (CJEU, 26 March 2026, C-412/24), the CJEU had ruled that a trade mark containing an old date may be misleading where it leads the public to believe in the existence of historical expertise, continuity of trade or a heritage spanning several centuries, when in fact no such reality exists. It was now for the Court of Cassation to examine whether, in view of the specific circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal—which had declared the trade mark invalid on the grounds that it was misleading—was well-founded or not.

The Court of Cassation thus noted that the reference to ‘Paris 1717’ leads the consumer to believe in the uninterrupted transmission of ancestral expertise and in the continuity of the business since the 18th century. However, the company holding the trade marks had not continued the business of the historic firm. The reference to 1717 was therefore likely to influence perceptions of the quality and prestige of the products being marketed.

Practical lesson:

A trade mark is not only misleading when it misleads the public as to the nature or origin of a product. It may also be invalidated when it artificially conveys an image of historical heritage or traditional expertise that is likely to influence consumer expectations.