[E-trademarks] VETEMENTS case going up to SCOTUS

Fri Sep 12 15:41:08 UTC 2025

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250912/72de553e/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20250912/72de553e/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20250912/72de553e/attachment-0001.png>