Vetements’ Trademark Rejection Signals Tougher Rules for Foreign Brand Names

The legal battle over the “Vetements” trademark represents a landmark case in fashion law, specifically regarding the “doctrine of foreign equivalents.” On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court officially declined to hear an appeal from Vetements Group AG, effectively ending the brand’s multi year effort to secure federal trademark protection for its name in the United States. 

This report provides a detailed timeline of the proceedings, the legal reasoning behind each outcome, and the strategic lessons for the fashion industry.

Detailed Timeline of Legal Proceedings

The dispute spanned over five years, progressing through every level of the U.S. trademark and federal court system.

Analysis of Outcomes at Each Stage

1. The USPTO and TTAB: The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

The initial denial was rooted in the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents, which requires the USPTO to translate foreign words into English to determine if they are generic or descriptive. Since “Vetements” translates directly to “clothing,” the USPTO argued that granting the trademark would be equivalent to giving one company the exclusive right to use the word “clothing” for apparel. The TTAB further clarified that because French is a major language widely taught in the U.S., a significant portion of consumers would likely translate the term.

2. The Federal Circuit: Genericness vs. Consumer Perception

On appeal, Vetements argued that the doctrine was outdated and that modern consumers perceive “Vetements” as a high fashion brand name rather than a literal description. However, the Federal Circuit held that genericness is a threshold issue. Because the word is the name of the product itself in a major language, it cannot function as a trademark, regardless of the brand’s fame. The court noted that even if only 1% of the population speaks the language, the law prevents the “foreclosure” of common terms from public use.

3. The Supreme Court: The Final Rejection

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case (denial of certiorari) indicates that the Justices did not see a “circuit split” or a compelling need to reform the existing doctrine. By declining the case, the Court left the Federal Circuit’s ruling as the final word, reinforcing the strict application of translation rules for foreign trademarks.

Lessons for Fashion Brands in Name Selection

The Vetements case serves as a cautionary tale for international brands entering the U.S. market. The following lessons are critical for brand name selection and trademark strategy.

The “Major Language” Risk

Fashion brands often look to the French, Italian, or Spanish for an air of sophistication. However, the USPTO considers these “common” languages. If a brand name is a descriptive or generic term in any of these languages (e.g., “Seta” for silk or “Scarpa” for shoes), it will likely face the same fate as Vetements.

Recommendation: Conduct a “Foreign Equivalent” search before finalizing a brand name to ensure the term is not descriptive in its native language.

Fanciful and Arbitrary Names Offer the Strongest Protection

The strongest trademarks are fanciful (completely made up words like Rolex) or arbitrary (real words used in an unrelated context, like Apple for computers). Vetements chose a generic name, which is the weakest category and generally ineligible for any trademark protection.

• Generic: Name of the product (e.g., Vetements for clothes),   Unprotectable.
• Descriptive: Describes a quality (e.g., Soft for sweaters), Hard to protect.
• Suggestive: Hints at a quality (e.g., Jaguar for speed), Protectable.
• Fanciful/Arbitrary: No relation to the product, Strongest protection.

The Difficulty of Proving “Secondary Meaning”

Vetements attempted to argue that they had “acquired distinctiveness” (Section 2(f)) through their massive global success. The courts ruled that generic terms can never acquire secondary meaning. Even if every person in the world knew the brand, the word “clothing” must remain free for all to use.

Lesson: Do not rely on marketing spend to “fix” a legally weak brand name. A generic name is a permanent legal liability in the U.S.

Strategic Use of Stylization

While Vetements failed to register the word mark, brands can sometimes secure limited protection for a stylized logo even if the word itself is descriptive. However, this does not prevent others from using the word in a different font or plain text, which significantly limits the brand’s ability to stop “dupes” or competitors.

Summary Table: Trademark Protectability Spectrum