The CJEU on Heritage Washing in Trade Mark Law

Key Takeaways

• CJEU says year in trademark can be deceptive if implying historic know‑how
• Deception must relate to goods' characteristics, not proprietor’s age
• Luxury goods especially vulnerable to heritage‑washing claims
• Absolute refusal applies only if sign itself misleads, not future use
• Revocation under Art 12(2)(b) suits misleading use after registration

Pulse Analysis

Heritage‑washing has become a popular marketing tactic, especially in the luxury sector, where consumers associate age with quality. The CJEU’s decision in case C‑412/24 provides the first comprehensive EU guidance on when a historic date in a trademark crosses the line into deception. By interpreting Art. 4(1)(g) as targeting false claims about the goods themselves—such as implied know‑how or prestige—rather than the owner’s chronology, the court set a clear benchmark for assessing absolute grounds for refusal.

For brand owners, the judgment signals a need to align trademark filings with verifiable product attributes. Companies that wish to evoke tradition must ensure that any date or reference can be substantiated by actual manufacturing heritage or, at minimum, does not mislead consumers about the quality of the goods. Licensing arrangements also come under scrutiny: while post‑registration misuse can be tackled through revocation under Art. 12(2)(b), the initial registration must not be predicated on a misleading sign. This distinction encourages firms to adopt transparent branding strategies and avoid over‑promising historic pedigree.

Looking ahead, the decision may prompt EU trademark offices to scrutinize applications featuring dates more rigorously, particularly for high‑end leather, leather‑goods, and other luxury categories. Legal counsel will likely advise clients to conduct thorough market‑perception studies before embedding historic references in marks. By limiting the scope of absolute refusal to the sign itself, the CJEU leaves room for nuanced, case‑by‑case analysis, but also warns that any perceived deception tied to product quality will not be tolerated. Brands that navigate these rules carefully can preserve their heritage narratives without risking costly cancellations.