Swiss luxury clothing brand Vetements’ attempt to trademark its name has come to an end. The brand’s name, which translates to “clothing” in French, was refused trademark registration due to being too generic.[1] Although Vetements appealed the refusal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ultimately declined to hear the case in January 2026.[2]
Origins of the Conflict
The dispute began in December 2021, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to register the brand name “Vetements.”[3] The Board ruled that because the name translated to “clothing” in French, it was too generic to function as a trademark.[4] Under the Lanham Act, a trademark’s purpose is to prevent consumer confusion by identifying the source of goods and protecting consumers from fraudulent products.[5] With French being the fifth most common language in the U.S., the appeals court affirmed the USPTO’s decision, holding that trademarking the name would risk an “appreciable” number of consumers recognizing it as a generic term.[6]
However, Vetements challenged this refusal, taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.[7] The brand argued that American consumers are unlikely to interpret “vetements” as a general term for clothing rather than as the name of a the luxury brand.[8] In response, Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Court to decline review, arguing that registering the French term for “clothing” could risk increasing confusion, going against the very purpose of trademarks.[9] Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, ending the challenge.[10]
Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents
At the core of this dispute is the USPTO’s decision to honor the doctrine of foreign equivalents.[11] U.S. trademark law requires foreign-language marks to be translated to English to determine whether they are generic or merely descriptive.[12] The doctrine prevents applicants from securing exclusive rights to foreign words that would be unregistrable if stated in English.[13] The appeals court agreed that the doctrine applied because American consumers are likely to translate “vetements” into English, creating a risk that purchasers would view the term as generic rather than as a distinctive brand mark.[14] Because “vetements” literally translates to “clothing,” the genus of the goods at issue, the court held the name to be generic and refused registration.[15]
Vetements disputed this conclusion, arguing that only about one percent of Americans speak French and that the assumption that consumers would translate the term was unsupported.[16] The Brand also contended that its widespread recognition makes confusion unlikely and that the USPTO improperly focused on the literal translation rather than consumer perception.[17] Still, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the lower court’s ruling in place.[18]
________________________________________________________________________________________________
[3] See Livni, supra note 1.
[6] See Jahner, supra note 2.
[7] See Livni, supra note 1.
[10] See Jahner, supra note 2.
[11] See TFL., supra note 8.
[12] In re Vetements Grp. AG, 137 F.4th 1317, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
[16] See TFL., supra note 8.
[17] See Livni, supra note 1.
[18] See Jahner, supra note 2.
