Vetements Pursues SCOTUS Review of Federal Circuit’s Foreign Equivalents Ruling

Fashion company Vetements Group AG filed a petition for a writ of certiorari that was docketed on August 19 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that upheld the rejection of its trademark applications for the non-English mark VETEMENTS under the doctrine of foreign equivalents. According to the petition, the case presents fundamental questions about whether foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception or English translation.

Vetements Group AG sought to register the proposed mark VETEMENTS, meaning “clothes” in French, for clothing and online retail store services in both standard characters and in stylized form. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the trademark applications under Section 1052(e), citing the doctrine of foreign equivalents. On April 21, 2023, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusal.

The Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s decision in a precedential opinion issued May 21, 2025, remarking that the “mark ‘VETEMENTS’ for clothing items is generic and merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness under the doctrine of foreign equivalents.” The Court determined that “French is the fifth-most spoken non-English language at home, and it is the second most widely taught non-English language in schools in the United States.”

Questions Presented

Two fundamental questions frame Vetements’ request to the Court for consideration:

1. Whether protection of a non-English mark is controlled by consumer perception of the mark taken at face value or controlled by its English translation.
2. What is the proper test for determining genericness or descriptiveness of a non-English mark?

Vetements contends that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, as applied by the Federal Circuit, “departs from a bedrock principle of the Lanham Act, which requires that consumer perception of a mark controls whether the mark is registrable.”

Even though only a small fraction of consumers would translate the term “VETEMENTS,” the Federal Circuit’s application of the doctrine bases the protectability of all non-English marks of modern languages on English translations rather than by how consumers perceive the marks in the original form.

A significant circuit split exists regarding how courts apply trademark law to foreign terms in non-English languages. The Fourth Circuit evaluates non-English marks based on consumer perception, while the Second and Fifth Circuits translate the marks. The Federal Circuit applies another test, translating any foreign term into a modern language even when less than 1% of the United States population understands it.

SCOTUS Precedent Arguments

Central to Vetements’ argument is the Supreme Court’s 1888 decision in Menendez v. Holt, which established the foundational principle for analyzing foreign-language marks. In that case, the Court found that the non-English mark “La Favorita” was a valid trademark because it “did not itself indicate quality, but instead was a fancy name and in a foreign language, distinguishable from ‘a mere English word denoting quality.'”

Vetements asserts that this finding represents “an implicit finding that protectability of a non-English mark should be judged ‘in itself,’ as it appears and is perceived by consumers” rather than through English translation. According to Vetements, Menendez established that foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception of the mark at face value.

The filing traces how the 1933 N. Paper Mills decision “departed from the directive of this Court’s Menendez decision, and did not consider consumer perception of the foreign term in the non-English mark.” Vetements maintains that this departure has particularly harsh consequences for fashion brands using foreign terminology, as it forces translation regardless of whether consumers actually understand or translate these terms in the marketplace.

Vetements underscores a critical nexus between its case and the Court’s recent decision in USPTO v. Booking.com. Similar to how the USPTO in Booking.com attempted to apply “a nearly per se rule” that automatically used the “.com” term as generic, the Federal Circuit here applies what amounts to a per se rule that requires foreign terms in modern languages to be translated.

The Court in Booking.com rejected this per se rule approach, finding that “an unyielding legal rule that entirely disregards consumer perception is incompatible with a bedrock principle of the Lanham Act.” Vetements argues this principle directly applies to their case, asserting that the Federal Circuit’s “declined to analyze Petitioner’s VETEMENTS marks as they appear and are perceived by consumers for purposes of determining registrability.”

Consumer Perception Under the Lanham Act

Established Lanham Act principles emphasize “the generic (or nongeneric) character of a particular term depends on its meaning to consumers” and that “eligibility for registration, all agree, turns on the mark’s capacity to ‘distinguish’ goods ‘in commerce.” Vetements insists that the Federal Circuit’s broad application of the doctrine contradicts this consumer perception approach mandated by the statute.

Implications for Trademark Protection

The case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify how the doctrine of foreign equivalents should be applied and whether it can be reconciled with the Lanham Act’s consumer perception-based approach to trademark protection.