Page 17 - Katten Kattwalk and Kattison Avenue - Winter 2026 - Issue 5
P. 17
Hadrian/Shutterstock.com
risk that the designer remains involved, the CJEU’s Why It Matters for Brands and Designers
decision confirmed that a registered trade mark of For brand owners, this decision allows continued
the designer’s name is vulnerable to a revocation
challenge. use of a designer’s name for a successor business,
but prevents misleading suggestions of ongoing
Factors Indicating Misleading Use involvement of the designer. Maintaining the use of
a designer’s name as a trade mark is permitted, but it
Determining when the use of a designer’s name
becomes misleading is context-specific. The cannot be paired with messaging, visuals or product
styling that mistakenly leads consumers to believe the
CJEU highlighted that certain factors in this case
suggested a risk of consumer deception, namely designer is still at the drawing board.
the use of visual elements closely associated with For designers, the ruling protects reputational capital
JCC’s distinctive creative style, particularly where after an exit. It recognizes that the “person” behind a
such use infringed JCC’s copyright. design can be a product characteristic in its own right.
If a successor company leans too hard into a designer’s
The Advocate General, whose reasoning the Court signature motifs (where they have not been assigned to
largely echoed, elaborated on the types of proof the successor company) or falsely signals the designer’s
that matter. Evidence could include advertising or continuing involvement, there is a meaningful route to
communications that feature the designer, suggest revoke the trade mark registration.
collaboration when none exists or use distinctive
stylistic motifs closely associated with the designer Maintaining the Name Without Misleading Consumers
but that are not owned by the company. Ultimately, Names carry weight in fashion, but they do not
revocation requires solid evidence that the mark’s confer a license to imply creative involvement that
use creates a false impression of the designers no longer exists. The CJEU’s message is balanced
ongoing creative involvement.
and commercially sensible. Successor companies can
However, the decision leaves practical questions keep the designer’s name, but not the illusion of the
to be resolved by the national courts; for example, designer’s continuing involvement. Where heritage is
how many misleading incidents are required, used to suggest a false narrative of creative control, the
how extensive must the advertising be and how law can be deployed to prevent it.
far a brand owner can borrow from a designer’s
aesthetic before crossing the line. *Amelie Hitchings, a trainee in our London office, contributed to
this article.
17
