Detailed close-up of black leather weave texture with visible stitching.

How can a leather goods brand be protected?

ByCabinet Lazuli

In the early eighteenth century, a gunsmith opened a shop in Paris. For almost three centuries, the Fauré Le Page house sold weapons, ammunition and leather accessories, before ceasing trading in 1992. In 2009, a newly formed company bought the trade mark. Two years later, it filed “Fauré Le Page Paris 1717” for bags and leather goods. A competitor, Goyard, challenged these trade marks in 2012. The proceedings would last fourteen years, going twice before the French Cour de cassation and once before the Court of Justice of the European Union1.

The heart of the dispute came down to four digits printed on a logo. The case is a reminder that a bag carries several signs at once (a name, sometimes that of a designer, a pattern, a shape, a date) and that trade mark law treats them very unevenly. This article takes them one by one.

The name, the foundation of protection

Once registered with the INPI (the French IP Office) or the EUIPO, the house name is protected for ten years, renewable indefinitely. It must, however, meet two conditions. It must be distinctive (a name that describes the product or one of its characteristics, such as “Cuir Souple” (“soft leather”) for bags, will be refused or cancelled). It must also be available: in other words, not “already taken” by an earlier trade mark.

In practice, designers often launch a first collection, start selling and only turn to the trade mark when a third party asserts earlier rights against them. Yet a clearance search should always precede the filing, which should then cover class 18 (leather, bags, leather goods) and the classes of products planned in the medium term (clothing, jewellery, perfume).

The territory of protection also needs to be considered. A French trade mark protects the brand in France. A European Union trade mark covers all twenty-seven Member States with a single filing, but it will be refused if the obstacle exists in only part of the Union. A name that is descriptive in just one EU language can therefore block the entire application.

When the founder leaves the brand that bears their name

Many houses bear their founder’s surname. On the day the founder sells the business, or loses it in insolvency proceedings, the trade mark bearing their name goes with it. The Court of Justice accepted this as early as 2006: a trade mark corresponding to a designer’s name does not become deceptive merely because it was assigned together with the business2.

The Court of Justice added an important qualification on 18 December 2025, in the Castelbajac case. If the trade mark proprietor uses the mark in a way that leads consumers to believe, wrongly, that the designer is still involved in designing the products, the trade mark may be revoked3. The ground is that the mark has become liable to mislead the public as a result of the use made of it by its proprietor.

For a designer assigning the rights to their surname, the assignment agreement must set out precisely how their name, signature and image may be used. The buyer, for its part, must keep a close eye on its communications: presenting a collection as “signed” by a founder who did not work on it is very risky.

The pattern: a weaker trade mark than it seems

The monogram, the printed canvas or the checkerboard are often what the public recognises from a distance, and so they serve to identify the product’s origin. Yet they are difficult trade marks to defend. A simple geometric pattern (checks, stripes, chevrons) is often held to lack distinctive character: according to offices and courts, consumers generally see it as mere decoration rather than as an indication of commercial origin.

The proprietor may try to show that the pattern has acquired distinctiveness through use and reputation. For an EU trade mark, the evidence must cover the entire territory in which the pattern lacked distinctive character, not just a few Member States4. Louis Vuitton’s Damier Azur learned this the hard way: after seven years of proceedings, the General Court of the European Union confirmed that acquired distinctiveness had not been proven for the Union as a whole5.

A more elaborate pattern is easier to protect, and may also qualify for copyright if it is original. It is therefore advisable not to rely on trade marks alone to protect a pattern: design rights and evidence of the date of creation are useful complements.

The shape of a bag can rarely be protected as a trade mark

The silhouette of an iconic bag seems the ideal candidate for a three-dimensional trade mark. Yet the French Intellectual Property Code excludes from registration any sign consisting exclusively of a shape that gives substantial value to the goods. The Court of Justice has made clear that this exclusion is not limited to purely aesthetic shapes and may apply to a shape that also has other characteristics6. In luxury leather goods, where the shape often accounts for most of the product’s appeal, the exclusion frequently applies.

A shape can be protected first and foremost by design law, for a maximum of twenty-five years if registered, and by copyright if the bag bears the stamp of its creator’s personality. In short, the trade mark protects what the bag says about its origin; designs and copyright protect its appearance.

Limits on referring to a historic date in a logo

Back to the house founded in 1717. The law prohibits the registration of a trade mark that is liable to deceive the public, in particular as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods. The proprietor companies argued that a date says nothing about the bag itself and therefore cannot mislead as to its characteristics.

On 26 March 2026, the Court of Justice replied that where a trade mark contains a number that the public perceives as the year the business was founded and which, because that year is long ago, suggests long-standing craftsmanship guaranteeing quality and prestige, when no such craftsmanship exists, the trade mark may be held deceptive7. The Cour de cassation drew the consequences on 23 September 20268.

The risk does not end on the filing date. A trade mark may become deceptive after filing through the use its proprietor makes of it, for instance when manufacturing leaves the city named on the logo or when the claimed craftsmanship has disappeared. It is then liable to revocation, which may be sought before the INPI or the courts, depending on the case.

In luxury, history is part of the product. Brand storytelling (“heritage branding”) has become a common marketing tool. A date, a city, a “since” or a reference to a founder must reflect genuine continuity of business and craftsmanship. Before filing a trade mark that claims a history, make sure you can prove it.

LAZULI advises designers, leather goods houses and fashion brands on the selection, filing and enforcement of their trade marks, designs and creations, and on negotiating the assignment of trade marks consisting of a designer’s surname.

Jérémie LEROY-RINGUET, September 2026

  1. Cass. com., 5 June 2024, case no. 22-11.499 (request for a preliminary ruling) ↩︎
  2. ECJ, 30 March 2006, Emanuel, C-259/04 ↩︎
  3. CJEU, 3rd Chamber, 18 December 2025, PMJC, C-168/24 ↩︎
  4. CJEU, 3rd Chamber, 25 July 2018, Société des produits Nestlé and Others v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services, C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P ↩︎
  5. General Court, 10th Chamber, 19 October 2022, Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO, T-275/21 ↩︎
  6. CJEU, 18 September 2014, Hauck, C-205/13 ↩︎
  7. CJEU, 3rd Chamber, 26 March 2026, Fauré Le Page, C-412/24 ↩︎
  8. Cass. com., 23 September 2026, case no. 22-11.499, published in the Bulletin: “Having thus shown the existence of actual deception as to the quality of the luxury leather goods covered by the registration of the ‘Fauré Le Page Paris 1717’ trade marks, since the average consumer is led to believe that their manufacture involves long-standing craftsmanship conferring a guarantee of quality and an image of prestige on those products, the court of appeal correctly inferred, without having to carry out the enquiries referred to in the third and fourth limbs of the ground of appeal, which its findings rendered ineffective, that the ‘Fauré Le Page Paris 1717’ trade marks had to be declared invalid on account of their deceptiveness.” ↩︎

FAQ – Leather Goods Trademarks

In class 18 (leather, bags, leather goods) and in the classes of products planned in the medium term, such as clothing, jewellery or perfume. Filing should be preceded by a clearance search.

An EU trademark covers all twenty-seven Member States with a single filing. However, an obstacle in part of the EU is enough for refusal, for example a name that is descriptive in a single language.

Yes, the trademark follows the business without becoming misleading for that reason alone. The assignment agreement should govern the use of the designer’s name, signature and image.

No. Since the Castelbajac judgment of 18 December 2025, such use exposes the trademark to revocation for misleading use.

Yes, but a simple geometric pattern is often held to lack distinctive character. Design rights and, if the pattern is original, copyright are useful complements.

Rarely. A shape that gives substantial value to the product is excluded. It is better protected by design rights (up to 25 years) or copyright.

Yes, if it suggests long-standing know-how that does not exist. The CJEU so held on 26 March 2026 in the Fauré Le Page case, and the French Supreme Court applied it on 23 September 2026.

Yes, through the way its owner uses it, for example when manufacturing leaves the city shown on the logo. It is then liable to revocation.

Similar Posts