Heritage trade marks and AI copyright: CJEU rules on deceptive founding dates and the EU Parliament adopts resolution on generative AI

EU trade mark dispute: Goyard v. Faure Le Page Paris 1717 (C-412/24) 

On 26 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in case C-412/24, Goyard SAS v Fauré Le Page International SAS. The Court ruled that a trade mark incorporating a historical founding date could be deemed deceptive if it misleads the relevant public into believing that the proprietor possesses long-standing expertise and a prestigious image that has not been consistently maintained. 

At the centre of the dispute were two french trade marks: Faure Le Page Paris 1717 (no. 3839809) and Faure Le Page Paris 1717 (no. 3839811). Both were filed on 17 June 2011 by Fauré Le Page International SAS, a French company reconstituted in 2009. The registrations cover goods in Class 18 of the Nice Classification, including leather goods, leather imitations, trunks, suitcases, travel bags and handbags. The date '1717' refers to the founding of the original Maison Fauré Le Page, a Parisian manufacturer of arms and hunting equipment which ceased operations in the 1990s. 

In 2012, the French luxury goods company Goyard SAS applied to the EUIPO to cancel both registrations, relying on Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on European Union trade marks (EUTMR), which prohibits the registration of signs that mislead the public about the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services. Goyard argued that the date '1717' misled consumers into believing that Fauré Le Page had been in operation continuously since the early eighteenth century. This gave the impression of a guarantee of quality and artisanal tradition that the current company could not substantiate. 

First the EUIPO Cancellation Division and then the Board of Appeal rejected Goyard's application. Both bodies held that the date '1717' served as a historical reference rather than a deceptive indication that could mislead consumers about the characteristics of the goods on sale today. The Boards based their reasoning on the idea that consumers in the luxury goods sector are familiar with heritage narratives and would not interpret a founding date as a guarantee of continuous commercial activity. Goyard challenged this decision in the French courts, which referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the scope of Article 7(1)(g) of the EU Trade Marks Regulation (EUTMR). 

The Court of Justice departed from the reasoning of the Board of Appeal. It ruled that, under Article 7(1)(g), the key issue is not whether a sign is objectively false, but whether the relevant public could be misled about a significant feature of the goods or services. When applied to a historical founding date, the Court found that the average consumer of luxury leather goods would typically interpret a date such as '1717' as indicating an unbroken tradition of craftsmanship, quality and commercial identity. If the owner cannot prove this, the sign falls within the prohibition of deceptive marks. 

The Court further clarified that the same principle applies to any mark that references longevity, whether it is expressed as a founding year or a phrase such as 'since 1717' or 'established in 1717', or if it is embedded in a heritage narrative within a brand name or slogan. The relevant question is always whether the claim of continuity can be verified. In this case, the Court concluded that the current Fauré Le Page company, which was incorporated in 2009 after a long period of inactivity, could not prove the continuous commercial and artisanal tradition associated with the year '1717' as perceived by the average consumer. Accordingly, the marks were liable to cancellation under Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g). 

For businesses that incorporate heritage claims into their brand, whether in the food and beverage, fashion, professional services or craftsmanship sectors, the ruling confirms that any reference to historical longevity in a trade mark must be backed by verifiable continuity. Trade marks that imply an uninterrupted tradition which the owner cannot demonstrate are open to proceedings for invalidity under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR. 

European Parliament adopts resolution on copyright and generative AI 

On 10 March 2026, the European Parliament adopted Resolution A10-0019/2026 with 460 votes in favour, 71 against and 88 abstentions. This resolution calls on the European Commission to introduce legislation that would extend EU copyright law to all generative artificial intelligence systems operating within the EU, regardless of where they were developed. 

The resolution puts forward two main proposals. The first is a transparency obligation, whereby providers of AI systems would be required to publish a detailed, itemised list of all copyright-protected works used for training. This would include post-training phases and retrieval-augmented generation processes, as well as records of crawling activities. This obligation would apply irrespective of where the training took place. 

The second proposal is a rebuttable presumption of infringement. If an AI provider fails to comply with the transparency requirements, they would be presumed to have used protected works without authorisation. In the event of a proven violation, the provider would be required to reimburse the legal costs of the rights holders and pay fair and proportionate remuneration. 

The proposal is based on Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM), which allows rights holders to protect their content from text and data mining using machine-readable methods. The Parliament's proposal would further shift the burden, requiring AI providers to demonstrate prior authorisation instead of relying on an absence of opt-out from rights holders. 

This is a non-binding resolution. It does not create new legislation. It sets out the Parliament's formal political position and paves the way for a potential Commission legislative proposal. In response, the Commission is expected to consider whether to initiate a formal legislative process. No timeline for any resulting legislation has been announced. 

For businesses in the creative sector, including those involved in design, publishing, music, photography and software development, the resolution is relevant in terms of how they manage their copyright portfolios. The existing opt-out mechanism under Article 4 of the DSM Directive is already in place, and businesses wishing to exercise it should do so by adding machine-readable reservations to their published content.