[E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS

Fri Sep 12 13:28:02 EDT 2025

I took French for twelve years, and vetements would immediately mean
"clothing" to me. ( I like Maria E  don't agree with the stop and translate
theory for foreign equivalents  - If you know the language, the meaning is
immediate) Like LA DOLCE VITA

I also know the word veuve but would not have immediately translated that
for champagne or wine because it doesn't seem to have a
descriptive significance for the goods. I will be interested to see how
SCOTUS resolves the circuit split on this doctrine.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 11:49 AM Matt Schneller via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Agree with Pam.
>
> And, while it's not *quite *a cognate due to the Norman misplacement of a
> consonant (who can fuss with spelling amidst all that pillaging?), the
> English "vestments" just means, more or less, "clothes (for priests)." That
> seems relevant to how generally understood the word would be, too.
>
> Matt Schneller
> Partner
> TM TKO, LLC
> 206-679-1895
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 10:44 AM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> But I expect those who took nothing more than first year French see
>> "vetements" and immediately know it means "clothing." Highly descriptive or
>> generic IMO, since a significant part of the population has passing
>> famiilarity with French.
>>
>> Pam Chestek
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025, 9:57 PM Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks <
>> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> I studied French for about ten years and I don’t remember the word VEUVE
>>> either (nor do I like champagne, but I guess that’s beside the point).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jessica R. Friedman
>>>
>>> Attorney at Law
>>>
>>> 300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> New York, NY 10022
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> Phone: 212-220-0900
>>>
>>> Cell: 917-647-1884
>>>
>>> E-mail: *jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>*
>>>
>>> URL: *www.literarypropertylaw.com <http://www.literarypropertylaw.com>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: 1479430908386_PastedImage]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on
>>> behalf of Diane Gardner via E-trademarks <
>>> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 2:45 PM
>>> *To: *For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
>>> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>>> *Cc: *Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS
>>>
>>> Just weighing in a bit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not speak French fluently, but I studied French for 6 years and
>>> once knew it well enough to tutor the subject.  I don’t recall “veuve”
>>> being a word in my immediate French vocabulary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the actual spelling of the French term for clothing
>>> is “vêtements.”  If any of you cannot see the special character present in
>>> this post, there is a circumflex (hat) accent over the first “e.”  For
>>> those who are at least minimally familiar with the French language, you
>>> will know that the circumflex often appears in words in which the “s” that
>>> would normally follow the vowel in related Romance language words is not
>>> present.  Vêtements (with or without the accent present) = vestments in my
>>> mind. Same as hôpital = hospital, île = isle, pâte = paste, côte =
>>> coast,  forêt = forest, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Diane L. Gardner*
>>>
>>> *Reg. No. 36,518*
>>>
>>> *_____________________________________________________________*
>>>
>>> *Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:*
>>>
>>> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/440+N.+Barranca+Ave.+%236387,+Covina,+CA+91723?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> 760.294.5160 *tel*. 706.955.9666* tel. *803.226.0741 *tel*.*  ▪  *
>>> diane at mmip.com*  e-mail*
>>>
>>> CA Lic. No. 196214   DC Lic. No. 470855   USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1,
>>> 2023:*
>>>
>>> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/532+Forest+Bluffs+Rd.,+Aiken,+SC+29803?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> *This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
>>> Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521.  It is sent by a law firm for its intended
>>> recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged,
>>> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
>>> not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>>> delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>>> notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying
>>> of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706)
>>> 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard
>>> copy you may have printed.  Absent an executed engagement agreement with
>>> Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and
>>> it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship
>>> with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
>>> Behalf Of *Ramon G. Vela Cordova via E-trademarks
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2025 2:05 PM
>>> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
>>> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>>> *Cc:* Ramon G. Vela Cordova <rvela at velacordova.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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> *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>
>>> *Cc:* Jessica R. Friedman <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:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    2. 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    3. 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> Jessica R. Friedman
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> Attorney at Law
>>>
>>> 300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> New York, NY 10022
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/300+East+59+Street,+Ste.+2406+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+New+York,+NY+10022?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> Phone: 212-220-0900
>>>
>>> Cell: 917-647-1884
>>>
>>> E-mail: *jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>*
>>>
>>> URL: *www.literarypropertylaw.com <http://www.literarypropertylaw.com/>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image006.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-trademarks mailing list
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-trademarks mailing list
>>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>>>
>>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>>
>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250912/5c7971f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001[92].png
Type: image/png
Size: 8892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250912/5c7971f3/attachment.png>