When a luxury fashion brand escalates a trademark dispute all the way to the nation’s highest court, the entire industry takes notice.
Swiss fashion label Vetements filed a petition for writ of certiorari on August 19, 2025, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision that rejected their trademark applications for “VETEMENTS.” This case will determine whether foreign-language brand names should be evaluated based on how American consumers actually perceive them, or whether courts should simply translate them into English and declare them generic.
For fashion brands worldwide, this decision could reshape how they protect their most valuable assets in the American marketplace.
Fashion Meets the Highest Court: The Vetements Case
Vetements has been fighting to trademark their brand name since 2020.
Founded by siblings Demna and Guram Gvasalia in 2014, Vetements sought to register “VETEMENTS,” meaning “clothes” in French, for clothing and retail services. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected applications under Section 1052(e), citing the doctrine of foreign equivalents. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the final blow on May 21, 2025, ruling that “vetements” is generic when used for garments.
Company argues legal systems wrongly rely on English translations of foreign words to determine trademark eligibility. With nowhere else to turn in lower courts, Vetements petitioned America’s highest court.
Supreme Court Trademark Law: Why This Case Matters Legally
Supreme Court doesn’t accept every case that comes before it.
When justices agree to hear a trademark dispute, it signals fundamental legal principles need clarification. This case challenges how American courts should handle growing numbers of international brands seeking protection in U.S. markets. Central to Vetements’ argument is Supreme Court’s 1888 decision in Menendez v. Holt, which found that foreign-language mark “La Favorita” was valid because it was “a fancy name and in a foreign language, distinguishable from ‘a mere English word denoting quality.'”
Trademark Law Principles Under Review
Federal Circuit applies a test, translating any foreign term into modern language even when less than 1% of United States population understands it.
Vetements challenges this translation-first approach by arguing that trademark law should focus on consumer understanding, not dictionary definitions. If American shoppers see “VETEMENTS” as a distinctive brand name rather than a generic descriptor, shouldn’t that perception control trademark analysis?
Precedential Impact on Future Cases
Significant circuit split exists regarding how courts apply trademark law to foreign terms.
Fourth Circuit evaluates non-English marks based on consumer perception, while Second and Fifth Circuits translate marks first. When federal appeals courts disagree this fundamentally, only Supreme Court intervention can provide nationwide consistency. Any decision justices reach will bind every federal court in America.
Fashion Industry Earthquake: Business Implications Across the Sector
Luxury fashion houses worldwide are watching this case with intense interest.
Many prestigious brands incorporate foreign language elements that could face similar translation challenges. High-end European brands often use French, Italian, or other languages in their names. Fast fashion companies adopt foreign terms to project sophistication. Even American streetwear brands incorporate foreign language elements for cultural authenticity.
If Supreme Court upholds translation approach, companies may need entirely different brand strategies for American market, fragmenting their global identity.
Sector-Specific Considerations
Streetwear and urban fashion brands face particular vulnerability because they often adopt foreign terms to build cultural credibility.
Ruling that favors automatic translation could force these companies to abandon authentic cultural references. Traditional luxury houses with century-old foreign names may find themselves unable to expand trademark protection to new product categories. Direct-to-consumer brands increasingly target global audiences through digital platforms and need predictable trademark rules.
Strategic Business Lessons
This dispute demonstrates critical importance of proactive trademark strategy before market entry.
Vetements filed applications in 2020, years after building brand recognition, only to discover their core brand name couldn’t receive federal protection. Smart fashion companies should evaluate their brand names through multiple legal lenses before launching. Does the name translate to something generic? How do target consumers actually perceive the brand versus its literal translation?
What Fashion Brands Should Learn from This Case
Vetements case represents every international fashion brand’s nightmare: investing heavily in brand development only to discover the name can’t receive federal trademark protection.
Smart companies can avoid this costly mistake through proactive trademark strategy. Fashion brands should evaluate their names through multiple legal lenses before launching. Does the name translate to something generic in any major market language? How do target consumers actually perceive the brand versus its literal translation? These questions become crucial for international brand development.
Foreign-language brand names require specialized trademark clearance that examines not just existing registrations, but also how different courts might interpret foreign terms under various legal doctrines.
Essential Steps for International Fashion Brands
Professional trademark analysis should evaluate consumer perception versus dictionary translation.
Brands need filing strategies that account for varying legal standards across key markets. This might involve different approaches in different countries, coordinated timing to establish priority rights, or strategic decisions about which markets justify investment in trademark protection. Fashion industry moves quickly, but trademark law requires strategic patience.
Companies that rush to market without proper trademark clearance often discover expensive legal problems after building consumer recognition.
The Economics of Prevention
Early trademark consultation costs thousands while Supreme Court litigation costs hundreds of thousands.
Vetements’ legal journey demonstrates how reactive trademark strategy becomes exponentially more expensive than proactive protection. Smart business planning includes trademark risk assessment before market entry, not after building brand recognition and discovering protection problems.
Your Brand Deserves Professional Protection
I’ve filed over 6,000 trademark applications since founding my practice in 2007, and I’ve seen how foreign-language brand names create both opportunities and vulnerabilities in American markets.
Contact me if you need guidance on your fashion brand’s trademark strategy.
