IP Law Daily, TRADEMARKS—Fed. Cir.: ‘Vetements’ mark, translated as ‘clothing’ in French, denied registration, (May 21, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

An “appreciable” number of Americans are capable of translating the term VETEMENTS from French into English.

Applying the foreign equivalents doctrine and concluding that the mark “vetements” translated as “clothing” in French is generic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied registration of the proposed trademark sought by a French fashion company. In affirming the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that an “appreciable” number of Americans are capable of translating the term VETEMENTS from French into English (In re Vetements Group AG, Case Nos. 2023-50, 2023-51 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025)).

Vetements Group AG, the owner of a French fashion company, sought registration of the character mark VETEMENTS as well as a design mark with the same lettering. The trademark examiner denied registration on the grounds that the trademark was generic under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 and was also “highly descriptive” with an insufficient showing of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). The Board applied the foreign equivalents doctrine and concluded that the marks were generic and merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness. The French fashion company appealed the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit.

Foreign equivalents doctrine. The Federal Circuit held that the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies and that the Board properly denied registration of the VETEMENTS proposed mark. The doctrine of foreign equivalents is used to ascertain if a non-English word mark is impermissibly generic or descriptive by translating the mark into English and then considering its genericness or descriptiveness. A descriptive word in a foreign language cannot be registered in the United States as a trademark for the described product. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, foreign words used as a mark are translated into English and then tested for descriptiveness, geographic descriptiveness and mis-descriptiveness, genericness, and likelihood of confusion.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the marks. The threshold limitation on the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents is whether an ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the mark into English. The appeals court recognized that it is enough to demonstrate that an “appreciable” number of Americans are capable of translating the term VETEMENTS from French into English. The Federal Circuit declined to adopt a standard that precisely or rigidly defines the ordinary American purchaser’s language skills. Typically, a descriptive word, used in one of the modern languages of the principal nations of the world, cannot be properly registered as a trademark. The Board cited U.S. Census Bureau data that as of 2010, approximately 2.1 million Americans over the age of five spoke a dialect of French at home. French is also the second most widely taught non-English language in schools in the United States. French, including all French dialects, was the fourth most common language spoken in the United States. Thus, the mark is generic and not registrable.

Acquired distinctiveness. Because the marks are generic, the Federal Circuit did not need to review the Board’s alternative holding that the marks are merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness. Because a generic mark is “the ultimate in descriptiveness,” it “cannot acquire distinctiveness.”

Therefore, Board did not err in concluding that as translated under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the VETEMENTS marks are unregistrable.

The Case is Nos. 2023-50, 2023-51.

Judge: Wallach, E.

Attorneys: Terence J. Linn (Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Ondersma LLP) for Vetements Group AG. Erica Jeung Dickey, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for the Coke Morgan Stewart.

Companies: Vetements Group AG

Cases: Trademark FedCirNews GCNNews USPTO