直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Application of the Foreign Equivalents Doctrine and Refusal of “VETEMENTS” Trademark

June 24, 2025

Authored and Edited by Luke H. MacDonald, Ph.D.; Sonja W. Sahlsten; Ryan O. Baker*

In In re Vetements Group AG, Nos. 2023-2050, 2023-2051 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register “VETEMENTS” for clothing and online retail services, finding the mark generic after applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents.

Vetements sought to register “VETEMENTS,” the French word for “clothing,” for use on apparel and online retail services. The TTAB applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents and found ordinary American purchasers would likely translate the mark into English, particularly considering the large number of French speakers in the US. The Board concluded the relevant consumer would understand “VETEMENTS,” when translated, as referring to the type of goods and services offered, and the mark was therefore generic.

On appeal, Vetements argued the TTAB misapplied the doctrine and the mark should not be translated because it is arbitrary or fanciful. While noting the doctrine of foreign equivalents “is not an absolute rule and should be viewed merely as a guideline,” the Federal Circuit rejected these arguments, emphasizing that modern languages are generally translated unless context suggests otherwise. Without delineating the precise boundaries of the doctrine, the Court found substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s findings.

Tags

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Trademark and Brand Management

Trademark Oppositions and Cancellations

Related Industries

Consumer Goods and Services

Consumer Products

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Luke H. MacDonald, Ph.D.
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2742
Email
Sonja W. Sahlsten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4329
Email

*Ryan O. Baker is a Summer Associate at Finnegan. 

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Conference

Best Practices and Tech in Intellectual Property Conference 2026

May 17, 2026

Tel Aviv

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Seminar

IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts

May 15, 2026

Taipei

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case

May 14, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP