On May 21, French fashion brand Vetements faced a judicial ruling that denied the registration of its trademark in the United States. Vetements Group AG, the company behind the brand, had applied to register the word mark and stylized form of “VETEMENTS” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
However, the USPTO and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) rejected the application, determining that the term is generic. The brand appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision, ultimately concluding that the mark could not be registered.
“VETEMENTS” Deemed Unregistrable for Being a Generic Term
The legal dispute began when Vetements Group AG sought to register “VETEMENTS” as a trademark in the U.S. Yet the USPTO examiner denied the application, finding the word to be a generic term directly identifying the goods and “highly descriptive” in nature.
The TTAB supported this assessment and applied the “doctrine of foreign equivalents.” Under this principle, a foreign word that would be understood by U.S. consumers is translated into English and then assessed for whether it is generic or descriptive.
Why the Court Found the Term Likely to Be Translated
The Federal Circuit further considered whether the average U.S. consumer would translate “VETEMENTS,” a French word, to “clothing.” The court clarified that it is not necessary for the majority of Americans to understand the term; rather, it is sufficient if “an appreciable number” of Americans are capable of translating it.
The court cited several supporting facts:
- According to U.S. Census Bureau data, approximately 2.1 million Americans spoke French at home as of 2010.
- French is the second most commonly taught foreign language in U.S. schools and the fourth most spoken language overall in the country.
Given this linguistic context, the court concluded that consumers would likely interpret “VETEMENTS” to mean “clothing” when used in connection with apparel. Therefore, the mark describes the product category itself rather than identifying a brand.
Distinctiveness Not Considered Relevant
The TTAB had also noted that even if “VETEMENTS” were not found to be generic, it would still be deemed merely descriptive and lacking in acquired distinctiveness. However, because the court concluded that the term is indeed generic, it determined that a deeper examination of distinctiveness was unnecessary.
As the decision explains, “A generic term is the ultimate in descriptiveness and cannot acquire distinctiveness,” even with extensive use or brand recognition.
The Pitfall of Global Expansion: The Legal Risks Behind Brand Naming
The Vetements case serves as a cautionary tale for non-English-speaking brands seeking entry into the U.S. market. Even if a name sounds culturally refined or attractive in its native language, if the term directly refers to the nature of the goods, trademark protection may be denied.
Using the aesthetic or phonetic appeal of foreign words as branding is common in the fashion industry. However, when expanding into international markets, brands must carefully consider the meaning and translatability of their names from both a linguistic and legal perspective.
View this post on Instagram
Copyright © 2025 Oui Speak Fashion. All rights reserved.
