[E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS

Thu Sep 11 18:04:54 UTC 2025

I don’t speak French, but at least here in Puerto Rico, “la Viuda” is a very common name for Veuve Clicquot champagne.  As in, “what should we order, la Viuda?”  Presumably, this is because at least some people understand that “veuve” means “viuda” in Spanish.  Also, to me at least, the mental connection between “vetements” in French and “vestimenta” in Spanish is no more obvious than the connection between “veuve” in French and “viuda” in Spanish.

Best regards,
Ramón

> On Sep 10, 2025, at 2:38 PM, Welch, John L. via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> 
> The CAFC said this:
>  
> “[T]he word in question [VETEMENTS] is a simple and common word—the word for clothing. On the other hand, “widow” requires a more advanced vocabulary. This, therefore, distinguishes this case from the aspect of Palm Bay that was premised on “an appreciable number of purchasers [being] unlikely to be aware that VEUVE means ‘widow’” in French, and therefore “unlikely to translate the marks into English.”Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).”
>  
> Do we have any French speakers out there? Is “veuve” an obscure word?
>  
> PS: Palm Bay was a likelihood of confusion case [not a genericness (or descriptiveness) case] in which the mark VEUVE ROYALE was found to be confusingly similar to VEUVE CLIQUOT for wine, but THE WIDOW was not confusingly similar, since consumers would not translate VEUVE as WIDOW..
>  
> JLW
>  
>  
>  
> <image002.png>
> John L. Welch
> Senior Counsel
> Admitted to Practice: Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC
> jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com <mailto:jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com>
> TEL. 617.646.8285
> <image003.jpg> <http://thettablog.blogspot.com/>	
> Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
> BOSTON | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DC
>  
> wolfgreenfield.com <https://www.wolfgreenfield.com/>  <image004.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/wolf-greenfield/> <image005.png> <https://twitter.com/wolfgreenfield>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>  
> 
> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
>  
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 11:18 AM
> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> Cc: Jessica R. Friedman <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS
>  
>  
> https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/04/world/europe/vetements-trademark-lawsuit.html raises a few questions for me:
>  
> The NY Times reporter analogizes the registration of VEUVE CLIQUOT, which means “widow cliquot” and refers to the company matriarch, for champagne, to the registration of VETEMENTS, which in French means clothing, for clothing. Is that an analogy the applicant has actually made, or is this just the usual ignorance of NY Times articles when it comes to IP?
>  
> The PTO refused registration on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive and that it appears to be generic. How can it be both?
>  
> The applicant’s response to the OA included the argument that “vetements” referred only to clothing as a category, while they are applying to register specific items of clothing: “Although the word “clothing” may have a relationship to an overall category of products, it is not the descriptive (nor generic) term for any specific item. A purchaser would not say they want to “buy a clothing.” Further, when the mark VETEMENTS is encountered an observer would first have to undertake translation of the word, and then draw a relationship to a specific item such as a sweatshirt”.I understand that we have to try any and every credible argument, but that one doesn’t strike me as falling into that category.
>  
>  
> Jessica R. Friedman
> Attorney at Law
> 300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
> New York, NY 10022
> Phone: 212-220-0900
> Cell: 917-647-1884
> E-mail: jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>
> URL: www.literarypropertylaw.com <http://www.literarypropertylaw.com/>
>  
> <image006.png>
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com

Best regards,
RGVC

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This is a confidential and privileged communication between the sender and the intended recipient(s).  Access to this communication by anyone else is unauthorized.  It is prohibited and unlawful for any unintended recipient to disclose, copy, distribute, or use in any other way the contents of this communication or any attachment thereto.  If you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender at (787) 594-0481.  Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250911/d8a2234a/attachment.html>