Federal Circuit upholds USPTO Refusal of Application for Registration for the Mark “VETEMENTS” Under the Foreign Equivalents Doctrine

In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) refusal of the mark “VETEMENTS” under the foreign equivalents doctrine.¹

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), trademarks registrations must be denied if the mark is “used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them.”² When a non-English word mark is in question, the court must translate the mark to English.³ If the English translation proves to be generic or descriptive, and it is likely that average American consumers would translate the word prior to purchase, the court must apply the doctrine of foreign equivalents and deny registration of the mark.⁴ While the foreign equivalents doctrine is not a brightline rule, it serves as a guiding tool for courts to determine whether a non-English mark is generic or descriptive of the applicant’s goods.⁵

In this case, the Appellant argued that the Board erred in applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents.⁶ However, “vêtement” translates to “clothing” in English. The Court considered the degree to which French is spoken in the United States.⁷ The appellant argued that only a small fraction of Americans speak French, but the USPTO provided U.S. Census Bureau data cited by the Board that revealed just over 2 million Americans spoke French at home.⁸ Furthermore, French is the second most popular non-English language taught in American schools.⁹ The Board provided evidence that 14% of students taking a foreign language from elementary school through high school, and 12.4% of university students studying a foreign language, take French.¹⁰ Because “clothing” is a simple and widely used term, it is likely that Americans with a basic understanding of French would stop and translate this introductory-level word.¹¹ Therefore, the doctrine of foreign equivalents must be applied.¹²

The Court further rejects the Appellant’s argument that there is a 50% population threshold understanding requirement, and highlights that it would make the doctrine of foreign equivalents invalid.¹³ There is no authority from this Court or other Circuits that reflect that requirement.¹⁴ The Court instead relies on persuasive authority from the Second Circuit that a word in a modern foreign language which is generally descriptive cannot be approved as a registered trademark.¹⁵

This case is distinguished from Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, because in that case, the court found that “veuve” was an advanced term that is not common enough for American consumers with a knowledge of the French language to stop and translate.¹⁶ The Court also differentiates this case from Palm Bay because “veuve,” translated to “widow,” is not associated with wine.¹⁷ Here, “vêtement” is associated with clothing.¹⁸

The appellant’s argument that terms in a foreign language are fanciful, and thus are “inherently distinctive and therefore registerable,” is not accepted by the Court.¹⁹ Instead, the Court finds that the Board’s conclusion that “vêtement” is easily recognized and a direct translation of the goods offered.²⁰

Because a substantial number of Americans have a basic understanding of the French language, and because the word “vêtement” is a generic and descriptive French word, the Court held that the average American consumer would stop and translate the word into English.²¹ Therefore, the USPTO and the Board correctly found that “vêtement” is not eligible to be registered as a trademark on the Principal Register maintained by the USPTO.²²

Vetements Group AG has filed a writ of certiorari on August 19, 2025.²³ Vetements argues that the decision does not align with values of US trademark law, specifically consumer perception.²⁴ Vetements argues the decision directly clashes with the Supreme Court precedent of Menendez v. Holt.²⁵ In Menendez, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of protection for the mark “La Favorita” based on consumer perception rather than the direct translation of the mark.²⁶ Vetements argues the Federal Circuit’s decision is deviating from the history of foreign equivalents cases.²⁷