The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent petition for a writ of certiorari in Vetements Group AG v. Stewart has reignited debate over how trademark law balances linguistic diversity with consumer perception. At the heart of the case is the doctrine of foreign equivalents - a principle that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reject trademarks that are merely descriptive or confusingly similar to their English translations.
The doctrine hinges on whether the “ordinary American purchaser” would translate a foreign word into its English equivalent. For instance, a French term like VEUVE ROYAL (meaning “Royal Widow”) might be deemed descriptive if consumers associate it with a specific product, even if the term itself is not inherently descriptive. This standard, outlined in the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), requires that the foreign word have a direct and literal translation into English and originate from a common, modern language like Spanish, French, or Russian.
Yet, the doctrine is not absolute. Courts have emphasized that the ordinary consumer must actively translate the term to trigger the rule. In Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, the Federal Circuit ruled that the French term VEUVE ROYAL was not confusingly similar to THE WIDOW because American consumers were unlikely to stop and translate the phrase. This underscores a critical nuance: the doctrine applies only when the term’s meaning is immediately recognizable to the average buyer.
The Vetements case challenges this framework. The fashion brand’s trademark applications for the term VETEMENTS - a French word meaning “clothing” - were rejected as generic. The USPTO argued that the term’s direct translation rendered it descriptive, a stance the Federal Circuit upheld. However, Vetements contends that the term’s recognition in the fashion world and its media buzz demonstrate that consumers do not equate it with “clothing.” The brand’s petition to the Supreme Court hinges on the Booking.com decision, which held that consumer perception - not rigid legal rules - should determine whether a term is generic.
This conflict highlights the broader tension in trademark law: how to reconcile linguistic diversity with the need to prevent consumer confusion. Lower courts have applied the doctrine inconsistently. The Fourth Circuit, for example, has embraced a consumer-centric approach, as seen in Pizzaria Uno Corp. v. Temple, where the Italian term UNO was deemed non-descriptive for a pizza restaurant. Conversely, the Second Circuit has emphasized the term’s origin, ruling that BELLA DI CERIGNOLA (a regional olive term) was generic regardless of consumer understanding.
The TTAB and Federal Circuit have also grappled with this ambiguity. While the TTAB adheres to the Palm Bay standard, requiring evidence that consumers would translate foreign terms, the Federal Circuit has sometimes considered the number of English speakers fluent in the relevant language. This inconsistency leaves businesses navigating a patchwork of interpretations, complicating trademark strategy.
For companies, the lesson is clear: trademark monitoring must account for both linguistic and cultural contexts. A term may be unambiguous in its origin but still risk confusion if it aligns with a common English word. The Vetements case could reshape how the USPTO evaluates foreign trademarks, potentially prioritizing consumer perception over rigid doctrinal tests.
As the Supreme Court weighs the case, the outcome may redefine the boundaries of trademark protection in an increasingly globalized marketplace. Businesses must remain vigilant, ensuring their marks avoid both literal and perceived descriptiveness while respecting the evolving legal landscape.