Trademark Law – Misleading by Year Number

ECJ Judgment of 26.03.2026 – Case No. C-412/24

Year numbers in brand names often stand for tradition, origin, and craftsmanship continuity – for instance, in sports clubs, manufactories, or luxury goods. However, this effect can become problematic in trademark law: A year number can mislead consumers if it suggests a founding year or historical legacy that does not actually exist. This is illustrated by a judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dated March 26, 2026 (Case C-412/24).

Trademarks fulfill a central function of origin: They are intended to enable the public to recognize the business affiliation of goods or services and to distinguish them from the offerings of other companies. Especially in the luxury segment, trademarks can significantly influence image, prestige, and purchasing decisions.

Essentially, various signs can be protected as trademarks, provided they are suitable for distinguishing a company’s goods or services from those of other companies and can be clearly and unequivocally represented in the register. These include, in particular:

• Words and names,
• Logos and graphic signs,
• Letters and numbers,
• Colors or color combinations,
• Shapes of goods or packaging,
• as well as under certain circumstances sound or movement marks.

Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Trademark Must Not Deceive

In addition to the requirements for registration, trademark law also knows so-called absolute grounds for refusal. According to these, a trademark can be excluded from registration, among other things, if it:

• is purely descriptive (e.g., directly names features of the goods),
• violates public order or accepted principles of morality,
• or is suitable for deceiving the public – about, for example, the nature, quality, geographic origin, or other essential characteristics.

In case C-412/24, the main question was when a year number included in a trademark is considered misleading.

Luxury Leather Goods and the Number “1717”

The ECJ proceedings were based on a dispute between two French companies in the luxury segment. The defendant company was only founded in 2009. However, it took over another traditional brand and registered trademarks for leather goods, where it included the designation with the number “1717”.

The plaintiff considered the use of the year number to be misleading. For part of the addressed customer base, the number could give the impression that the company has existed since 1717 or possesses craftsmanship experience that has developed over centuries, as well as special know-how.

What’s important here is that in trademark disputes, it’s not necessarily about whether a statement can be “explained” in some way objectively. What matters is what impression is likely to arise among the relevant circles and whether this impression can be relevant for the buying decision.

The Legal Dispute before the ECJ

The ECJ clarified that a trademark can be misleading if it suggests a historical legacy or longstanding expertise through a year number that is not actually present. This can be significant particularly for luxury goods, as tradition and prestige are often perceived as quality features there.

Following the decision, there can be a risk of deception especially when a number is understood as an indication of an earlyfounding year, but the actual company history does not support this. The ECJ emphasized in this context, in essence, that a year number in a trademark can mislead consumers aboutquality and reputation if it implies a long tradition that is not grounded in reality.

Deception about quality, reputation, and “perceived” characteristics

The ECJ thereby follows a line of reasoning that the quality of luxury goods may not only result from material properties (e.g., material, craftsmanship). Theprestige character and the associated perceptions can also be essential for the perceived quality.

A year number like “1717” is read – depending on the context – not merely as a decoration, but as a signal for:

• long company history,
• continuous production tradition,
• special skill/experience,
• an established reputation in the market.

If this historical continuity is missing, the audience can be misled about essential features of the offering. Especially for luxury goods, the “story” of a brand can be decisive for purchase decisions.

No automatic inadmissibility: It depends on the specific risk of deception

The judgement does not mean that every year number or every historical reference in a trademark would be inadmissible. What matters is whether there is anactual deception or at least asufficiently serious risk of deception for the relevant audiences.

The concrete overall assessment regularly depends on circumstances like these:

• Industry and product segment (for luxury goods, tradition can be particularly relevant to purchase),
• design and context (does the number appear like a founding year, e.g., “Since 1717” or in connection with historical claims?),
• communication and marketing (website, packaging, storytelling, retailer texts),
• actual company history and possible continuity (e.g., legal succession, acquisition of an old brand, continuation of a manufacturing tradition),
• Understanding the targeted audience.

The CJEU clarified that the final assessment in individual cases is to be made by the national courts.

Practical significance for trademark registration and management

The judgment is particularly relevant for companies that use years, “Since” indications, or historical references as part of their brand identity. Because, besides registration issues, there can also be risks of attacks and liabilities arise, such as:

• Registration refusal due to the risk of deception,
• Attacks on an existing registration (e.g., nullity or cancellation proceedings, depending on the jurisdiction and type of proceedings),
• Cease-and-desist and consequential claims under national law (e.g., in conjunction with competition law regulations against misleading actions).

Especially in cross-border marketing within the EU, it is worth considering years not in isolation, but always together with the overall brand presentation.

Conclusion: Secure historical years in trademarks carefully

Many brands rely on tradition and origin. However, the CJEU’s ruling of 26.03.2026 (C-412/24) clearly shows: A year can be legally risky for trademark purposes if it suggests a long corporate history or special know-how to the public, without a solid basis for such claims.

Companies should therefore check before registration and use whether the historical statement:

• is factually correct or at least verifiably demonstrable (e.g., real continuity, legal succession, demonstrable continuation),
• can actually be understood as the founding year in the specific design and wording,
• and whether additional explanations or an adjustment of the brand strategy are necessary to avoid misunderstandings.

Note: This contribution serves general information purposes and does not constitute individual advice. Whether a specific year in a brand is permissible depends on the individual case and the overall presentation.

MTR Legal Attorneys advises on trademark law.

Feel free to contact us.