The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a pivotal ruling in Case C-168/24, clarifying when a company can use a designer’s name as a trademark after their professional relationship ends. This decision balances trademark rights with consumer protection in creative industries.
Designer [W] [X] built a career marketing clothes under his name, creating strong brand recognition. His firm’s bankruptcy led PMJC to buy all assets, including name-based trademarks. Post-acquisition, they collaborated briefly, allowing PMJC to profit from the name’s fame. Relations soured when [W] [X] started new projects using his name again.
PMJC sued for infringement, viewing his actions as a threat. [W] [X] counterclaimed for partial trademark cancellation, arguing PMJC’s use misled buyers into thinking he still designed their products. He highlighted risks of consumer confusion in fashion, where personal involvement matters deeply.
The Paris Court of Appeal partially revoked PMJC’s marks, citing likely public deception about [W] [X]’s role. Key evidence: PMJC’s prior copyright loss for copying his untransferred designs, suggesting overreach. This influenced the finding of misleading practices, prompting PMJC’s appeal.
France’s Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) referred questions to the CJEU, recognizing EU-wide trademark implications. On December 18, 2025, the CJEU responded with guiding principles, not a final verdict.
Referencing the 2006 Emanuel case, the CJEU ruled that ending a designer-company tie doesn’t automatically make name-use misleading. Trademarks can leverage past goodwill legitimately. However, deception arises if circumstances—like marketing, product type, or history—lead average consumers to assume ongoing creative input from the designer.
The case returns to France’s top court to apply these rules fact-specifically. It must evaluate if PMJC’s promotions, packaging, or copyright issues create false impressions of [W] [X]’s involvement. Courts can consider broader context for fair outcomes.