In In re: Vetements Group AG, Nos. 2023-2050, -2051 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) refusal to register “VETEMENTS” as a trademark for clothing and online retail clothing store services. Applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the court agreed that “vetements,” the French word for “clothing,” is generic or, at best, merely descriptive of the applicant’s goods and services and lacked acquired distinctiveness. The ruling underscores key limits on registering foreign-language marks that translate into generic English terms.
Background
Vetements Group AG sought registration of “VETEMENTS” in both standard and stylized forms for a variety of apparel items and related retail services. The USPTO refused registration under § 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, finding the term generic or merely descriptive without secondary meaning. The TTAB affirmed, concluding that consumers would likely translate “vetements” into “clothing,” and would perceive the term as referring to a genus of goods.
Legal Standards and Application
The court conducted a de novo review of the Board’s legal determinations and assessed factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. It framed its analysis around several well-established principles:
- Generic Terms Are Not Registrable: A generic term “is the ultimate in descriptiveness” and incapable of indicating source. (Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, 130 F.4th 1025, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2025)).
- Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents: Foreign terms from modern languages are generally translated into English to assess descriptiveness or genericness. This doctrine applies where the “ordinary American purchaser” would likely “stop and translate” the term. (Palm Bay Imports v. Veuve Clicquot, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
- Ordinary American Purchaser: This includes U.S. consumers familiar with the foreign language. Even absent a majority, an “appreciable number” of speakers is sufficient. The Board found over 2 million U.S. residents speak French at home, and French is widely taught in U.S. schools—facts the court deemed substantial evidence.
- Context of Use: The court distinguished cases like Palm Bay and Tia Maria, where foreign terms had no logical connection to the goods and thus were unlikely to be translated. By contrast, “vetements” directly describes the goods at issue—clothing—and consumers encountering the term on apparel would likely understand and translate it.
Notable Precedent
The court’s decision reaffirmed and applied key precedents:
- H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, 782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) — The genericness test focuses on consumer understanding of the term’s primary significance.
- In re Hotels.com, 573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) — Generic terms cannot acquire distinctiveness.
- Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel, 290 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1961)(Rich) — Foreign generic words are treated equivalently to their English counterparts.
Takeaway
The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that marks comprised of foreign terms will not evade genericness or descriptiveness bars simply by virtue of being in another language. The doctrine of foreign equivalents is not discretionary in such cases; rather, it operates as a consistent threshold inquiry. Where a foreign term clearly describes or generically names the applicant’s goods and would be understood by an appreciable segment of U.S. consumers, registration is foreclosed.
For brand owners, this decision reinforces the importance of assessing the English meaning and consumer perception of foreign-language marks, particularly in connection with goods or services closely tied to the translated term.
Leave a Reply