The Vetements Trademark Case Pending at the Supreme Court : A Landmark Challenge to the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

By Yomtobian Law

The United States Supreme Court may soon resolve a fundamental question in American trademark law: Should foreign-language trademarks be evaluated based on how consumers actually perceive them, or through their English translations? The pending case of *Vetements Group AG v. Stewart*, docketed as No. 25-215, challenges the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents after the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s refusal to register “VETEMENTS”—French for “clothing”—as a trademark for apparel products.

This case has significant implications for international brands operating in the United States and could reshape how trademark law balances linguistic diversity with the protection of generic and descriptive terms.

Background: What is the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents?

The doctrine of foreign equivalents is a long-standing principle in U.S. trademark law that requires foreign words to be translated into English when determining whether they are generic or merely descriptive. The doctrine originated from the 1933 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals decision in *In re N. Paper Mills*, 64 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1933), which established that examiners should translate foreign terms when evaluating trademark applications.

Under the Lanham Act (https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/trademark-act), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), trademark protection cannot be granted to marks that are merely descriptive or generic for the goods or services they identify. A generic term—such as “apple” for apples—can never function as a trademark because it simply names the category of goods itself.

The doctrine of foreign equivalents extends this principle to non-English words. If a foreign term translates to a generic or descriptive English word, and American consumers are likely to recognize that translation, the foreign term may be refused registration under the same rationale.

However, the Federal Circuit has emphasized that the doctrine is “not an absolute rule and should be viewed merely as a guideline.” *Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin*, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The court stated that the doctrine does not apply “[w]hen it is unlikely that an American buyer will translate the foreign mark.”

The Vêtements Application: Procedural History

Initial USPTO Examination

Vetements Group AG, a prominent Swiss fashion company, filed two trademark applications seeking to register “VETEMENTS” for:

1. Clothing items (in standard character form)

1. Online retail store services featuring clothing (in a stylized block-letter form)

The USPTO examining attorney refused both applications, finding that “vêtements” is the French word for “clothing” and therefore generic for clothing goods and merely descriptive for clothing retail services. The examining attorney cited evidence of French language prevalence in the United States, including:

- French is the fifth-most spoken non-English language in American homes

- French is the second-most widely taught non-English language in U.S. schools

- Approximately 2.1 million Americans spoke French at home according to 2010 U.S. Census data

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Decision

On April 21, 2023, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision affirming the examining attorney’s refusal. The Board applied a three-part analytical framework for determining whether the doctrine of foreign equivalents should apply:

1. **Burden of Proof:** The party opposing translation bears the burden of showing that ordinary American purchasers would be unlikely to translate the foreign term into English

1. **Translation Capability:** Consideration of whether American consumers have the capability to translate the term, based on factors such as the prevalence of the language in the United States

1. **Likelihood of Translation:** Assessment of whether consumers would actually stop and translate the term in the context of encountering it in commerce

The TTAB concluded that the evidence supported application of the doctrine. The Board noted that French is a commonly taught and spoken language in the United States, and that “vêtements” is a basic, common French word that French-speaking consumers would readily understand. The Board found that Vetements had failed to meet its burden of proving that consumers would not translate the term.

The TTAB also held that even if “VETEMENTS” were not deemed generic, it would still be merely descriptive without having acquired distinctiveness (also known as secondary meaning) in the marketplace.

Federal Circuit Appeal

Vetements appealed the TTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the TTAB. The case was designated *In re Vetements Group AG*, Nos. 2023-2050, 2023-2051.

On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the TTAB’s refusal to register the mark. *In re Vetements Group AG*, 137 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The court’s opinion addressed several key arguments:

Application of the Doctrine

The Federal Circuit emphasized that while the doctrine of foreign equivalents is a guideline rather than an absolute rule, it should generally be applied to words from modern, widely-spoken languages. The court found substantial evidence supporting the TTAB’s conclusion that an “appreciable number” of American consumers would likely “stop and translate” the word “VETEMENTS” into “clothing.”

The court rejected Vetements’ argument that a majority of consumers, or some specific percentage threshold, must be capable of translating the term for the doctrine to apply. The Federal Circuit stated that requiring a 50% population threshold would effectively invalidate the doctrine of foreign equivalents.

Distinguishing Precedent

Vetements had argued that its case should be analyzed similarly to *Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin*, 396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005), where the Federal Circuit held that the French word “VEUVE” (meaning “widow”) should not be translated when used for champagne because the connection between “widow” and champagne was not intuitive.

The Federal Circuit distinguished *Palm Bay*, noting two key differences:

1. “Veuve” is a more advanced or sophisticated French term that even French speakers might not immediately recognize

1. There is no logical connection between “widow” and wine, whereas “clothing” is directly descriptive of clothing goods

The court found that “VETEMENTS” presents a much clearer case for application of the doctrine because the translated meaning directly describes the goods.

Consumer Perception vs. Translation

The Federal Circuit acknowledged Vetements’ argument that trademark law should focus on consumer perception rather than linguistic translation. However, the court concluded that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, properly applied, does consider consumer perception—specifically, the perception of consumers who would understand or translate the foreign term.

The court noted that allowing registration of foreign generic or descriptive terms would potentially allow applicants to monopolize generic or descriptive language simply by using a non-English version, thereby circumventing fundamental trademark principles.

The Supreme Court Petition

Filing and Docketing

On August 19, 2025, Vetements Group AG filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision. The case was docketed as *Vetements Group AG v. Stewart*, No. 25-215 (the respondent is Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO).

Questions Presented

The petition presents two fundamental questions for the Supreme Court’s consideration:

1. **Whether protection of a non-English mark is controlled by consumer perception of the mark taken at face value or controlled by its English translation**

1. **What is the proper test for determining genericness or descriptiveness of a non-English mark?**

Arguments for Certiorari

VETEMENTS’ petition advances several arguments for why the Supreme Court should grant review:

Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent

Vetements argues that the Federal Circuit’s approach conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 1888 decision in *Menendez v. Holt*, 128 U.S. 514 (1888), which held that the Spanish mark “LA FAVORITA” was protectable as a trademark despite being a foreign-language phrase. VETEMENTS contends that *Menendez* established the principle that foreign marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception rather than automatic translation.

The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in *USPTO v. Booking.com*, 591 U.S. 549 (2020), which emphasized that trademark eligibility must be determined based on consumer perception and rejected “nearly per se rules” that categorically exclude certain types of marks from protection. Vetements argues that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, as applied by the Federal Circuit, functions as an impermissible per se rule.

Circuit Split

The petition highlights a significant split among the federal courts of appeals regarding how to evaluate foreign-language marks:

- **Fourth Circuit:** Applies a consumer perception approach, evaluating marks based on how consumers actually encounter them rather than requiring translation. The Fourth Circuit focuses on whether consumers would perceive the mark as identifying source or as generic/descriptive in its foreign-language form.

- **Second and Fifth Circuits:** Apply translation-based approaches similar to the Federal Circuit, requiring foreign terms to be translated into English for evaluation.

- **Federal Circuit:** Applies the doctrine of foreign equivalents as articulated in *Palm Bay* and other cases, translating foreign terms from modern languages when “an appreciable number” of consumers could understand the translation.

This circuit split creates uncertainty for trademark applicants and owners, particularly international brands seeking nationwide protection for marks that include foreign-language elements.

National Importance

VETEMENTS argues that the question presented has significant national importance given the increasing globalization of commerce and the multilingual nature of American society. The petition notes that rigid application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents may disadvantage international brands and conflict with the linguistic diversity of the modern American marketplace.

The petition emphasizes that even when only a small fraction of consumers would translate a term, the Federal Circuit’s approach still requires translation, potentially denying protection to marks that most consumers perceive as distinctive rather than generic or descriptive.

Government Response

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition to certiorari, urging the Supreme Court to deny review. The government’s brief defends the USPTO’s and Federal Circuit’s application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents as consistent with established trademark principles and necessary to prevent monopolization of generic or descriptive terms.

Defense of Translation-Based Approach

The government argues that the doctrine of foreign equivalents properly implements the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of generic and descriptive marks. According to the government, allowing foreign-language versions of generic terms to be registered would create an artificial advantage for sophisticated applicants who could circumvent trademark law’s fundamental limitations simply by using foreign words.

The government brief characterizes the Federal Circuit’s decision as “a textbook application” of settled law. It argues that Vetements’ reliance on *Menendez v. Holt* is misplaced because that 19th-century case predated modern trademark doctrine and did not address the specific analytical framework now used to evaluate foreign-language marks.

Rejection of Consumer Perception Argument

The government disputes VETEMENTS’ characterization of the doctrine as ignoring consumer perception. Instead, the government contends that the doctrine appropriately considers the perception of consumers who understand the foreign language. According to this view, a mark cannot function as a source identifier for the segment of the market that recognizes it as generic or merely descriptive.

The government brief emphasizes that the Federal Circuit requires substantial evidence that consumers would likely translate a term before applying the doctrine. The court does not automatically translate all foreign words but rather evaluates whether, given the prevalence of the language and the nature of the term, translation is likely.

Concerns About Foreign and Domestic Competition

The government’s brief also addresses concerns about how registration of foreign generic terms could affect both foreign and domestic markets. If “VETEMENTS” were registered for clothing in the United States, it could potentially be used to challenge the use of the same or similar marks by other French-speaking businesses, even in French-speaking markets or French-language advertising in the United States.

The government notes that U.S. trademark law allows competitors to use descriptive terms in their ordinary, non-trademark sense. However, registration could still provide VETEMENTS with enforcement tools that would be inappropriate for a fundamentally generic term.

Current Status

As of December 2025, the petition for certiorari remains pending before the Supreme Court. The Court has not yet decided whether to grant review. If the Court denies certiorari, the Federal Circuit’s decision will stand as binding precedent for future cases involving foreign-language marks before the USPTO and Federal Circuit.

If the Court grants certiorari, the case would likely be argued in the Court’s 2025-2026 term, with a decision expected by June 2026.

Legal Analysis: The Doctrine in Context

The Purpose of Prohibiting Generic Marks

To understand the doctrine of foreign equivalents, it is essential to understand why trademark law prohibits registration of generic terms. Generic terms are the common, everyday names for categories of goods or services. Allowing any single company to obtain exclusive trademark rights in a generic term would unfairly restrict competition by preventing other sellers from using the most natural and descriptive language to identify their products.

For example, if Apple Inc. could trademark “COMPUTER” for computers, it would prevent Dell, HP, and every other computer manufacturer from accurately describing what they sell. This would harm competition and consumer communication.

The same principle extends to merely descriptive marks—terms that describe a characteristic, quality, ingredient, or feature of the goods. While descriptive marks can become registrable if they acquire distinctiveness (secondary meaning), they cannot be registered based solely on their intrinsic characteristics because doing so would grant one competitor exclusive rights in language that all competitors need to use.

Application to Foreign Languages

The doctrine of foreign equivalents extends these fundamental principles to foreign-language terms. Without such a doctrine, applicants could potentially circumvent the generic/descriptive prohibition by using foreign translations of generic English words.

However, critics of the doctrine—including Vetements—argue that this reasoning oversimplifies the reality of consumer perception. In a multilingual marketplace, many consumers encounter foreign-language brand names without translating them. To these consumers, “VETEMENTS” may function as a distinctive source identifier rather than a generic term for clothing.

The Consumer Perception Principle

Modern trademark law generally emphasizes that registrability should depend on consumer perception. As the Supreme Court stated in *Booking.com*, “whether a term is generic depends on its meaning to consumers.” 591 U.S. at 558.

This consumer-focused approach has led some courts and commentators to question whether the doctrine of foreign equivalents, with its emphasis on translation, adequately accounts for how consumers actually experience marks in the marketplace. If most American consumers encounter “VETEMENTS” as a brand name rather than immediately thinking “clothing,” should the mark be treated as generic?

The Federal Circuit’s response is that the doctrine does consider consumer perception—specifically, the perception of the “appreciable number” of consumers who would understand or translate the term. According to this view, a mark cannot function to identify source if a significant segment of the consuming public recognizes it as generic.

The “Appreciable Number” Standard

One of the key disputes in the VETEMENTS case concerns what percentage of consumers must be capable of translating a foreign term for the doctrine of foreign equivalents to apply. The Federal Circuit rejected any bright-line percentage threshold, instead using the standard of an “appreciable number” of consumers.

This flexible standard gives the USPTO and courts discretion to evaluate each case based on its specific facts, including:

- The prevalence of the foreign language in the United States

- Whether the foreign term is a common, basic word or a sophisticated, technical term

- The context in which consumers would encounter the mark

- Evidence of how consumers actually perceive the mark in the marketplace

Critics argue that this flexibility creates unpredictability and allows the doctrine to be applied based on speculation about consumer behavior rather than evidence of actual consumer perception.

Implications for International Brands

The outcome of the VETEMENTS case will have significant practical implications for international businesses seeking trademark protection in the United States.

Strategic Considerations for Brand Selection

International companies developing brands for the U.S. market should carefully consider the doctrine of foreign equivalents when selecting marks. Key considerations include:

1. **Avoid direct translations of generic or descriptive terms:** Brands that are generic or merely descriptive when translated into English face substantial registration obstacles

1. **Consider linguistic distance:** Marks in languages less commonly spoken or taught in the United States may face fewer translation-based objections

1. **Use arbitrary or fanciful foreign terms:** Foreign words that do not directly describe the goods or services are more likely to be registrable

1. **Develop secondary meaning:** Even descriptive foreign marks may become registrable if they acquire distinctiveness through extensive use and consumer recognition

1. **Strategic use of stylization:** While stylization alone typically cannot overcome genericness, it may help establish distinctiveness for merely descriptive marks

Current Registrations and Enforcement

The VETEMENTS decision may also affect existing trademark registrations and enforcement strategies. Brands with registered marks that include foreign generic or descriptive terms may face challenges in enforcement, particularly if courts broadly apply the doctrine of foreign equivalents.

However, it is important to note that the VETEMENTS case specifically addresses federal registration. The doctrine of foreign equivalents does not necessarily prevent:

- Common law trademark rights based on actual use in commerce

- State trademark registrations (though state law often parallels federal law)

- Use of foreign terms in advertising and branding (subject to unfair competition principles)

International Trademark Portfolio Management

For brands operating internationally, the VETEMENTS case highlights the importance of understanding that trademark registrability standards vary significantly by jurisdiction. A mark that is protected in one country may face obstacles in another, even among countries with generally similar trademark systems.

Many countries, particularly those that are not primarily English-speaking, may be more receptive to registering marks like “VETEMENTS” because the analysis focuses on consumer perception in that country’s linguistic context.

Related Doctrine: Acquired Distinctiveness

Even if a mark is found merely descriptive under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, it may still become registrable by acquiring distinctiveness (also known as secondary meaning). Under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), a descriptive mark can be registered if it “has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.”

However, generic marks can never acquire distinctiveness, no matter how much they are used or recognized. As the Federal Circuit noted in the VETEMENTS decision, “A generic term is the ultimate in descriptiveness and cannot acquire distinctiveness.”

In the VETEMENTS case, the TTAB and Federal Circuit found the mark to be generic rather than merely descriptive for clothing goods, which foreclosed any argument about acquired distinctiveness. For the retail services, the mark was found merely descriptive, and the applicant was found not to have proven acquired distinctiveness.

To prove acquired distinctiveness, an applicant typically must show:

- Substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark for at least five years (which creates a rebuttable presumption)

- Evidence of consumer recognition of the mark as identifying the applicant’s goods or services

- Extensive advertising and sales under the mark

- Consumer surveys or testimony demonstrating source-identifying significance

For foreign-language marks found merely descriptive under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, proving acquired distinctiveness may be challenging because applicants must show that the consuming public has come to recognize the term as a brand rather than a description—despite the fact that a portion of that public understands the descriptive meaning.

Comparison to Other Trademark Doctrines

The doctrine of foreign equivalents intersects with several other important trademark principles:

Distinctiveness Spectrum

Trademark law traditionally categorizes marks along a spectrum of distinctiveness:

1. **Generic:** Common name for the goods/services (never protectable)

1. **Descriptive:** Describes characteristics of goods/services (protectable only with acquired distinctiveness)

1. **Suggestive:** Suggests qualities without directly describing (inherently distinctive)

1. **Arbitrary:** Common words used in unrelated contexts (inherently distinctive)

1. **Fanciful:** Invented words with no dictionary meaning (inherently distinctive)

The doctrine of foreign equivalents primarily operates at the generic and descriptive levels of this spectrum. When a foreign term translates to a generic or descriptive English word, it is treated accordingly.

Likelihood of Confusion

The doctrine of foreign equivalents also applies in likelihood of confusion analysis, where courts evaluate whether two marks are so similar that consumers are likely to be confused about the source of goods or services. When comparing marks, courts may translate foreign-language marks to determine whether they would be confusingly similar to English-language marks.

For example, in the case cited by several sources, “GUEPARDO” (Spanish for “cheetah”) was refused registration due to likelihood of confusion with an existing “CHEETAH” registration, both for vehicle-related goods.

Deceptive Misdescriptiveness

Under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, marks that are “deceptively misdescriptive” of goods or services are also barred from registration. The doctrine of foreign equivalents can apply here as well. If a foreign term translates to a deceptive misdescription, it may be refused even if consumers would need to translate it.

Historical Context and Evolution

The doctrine of foreign equivalents has evolved significantly since its origins in the early 20th century. Understanding this evolution provides important context for the current debate.

Early Development

The doctrine emerged from a practical concern: preventing applicants from circumventing trademark law’s fundamental limitations through the simple expedient of using foreign languages. In an era when international commerce was expanding and American markets were becoming more diverse, courts recognized the need to apply consistent standards regardless of language.

The 1933 *N. Paper Mills* decision established the basic framework, but the doctrine remained relatively undefined in terms of when and how it should be applied.

Modern Refinement

The Federal Circuit’s 2005 decision in *Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin* significantly refined the doctrine by establishing that it is a guideline rather than an absolute rule. *Palm Bay* recognized that context matters—not every foreign word should be automatically translated, particularly when:

- The foreign term is sophisticated or uncommon

- There is no logical connection between the translated meaning and the goods/services

- Evidence shows consumers do not translate the term in practice

Contemporary Challenges

The VETEMENTS case reflects contemporary challenges in applying a mid-20th-century doctrine to 21st-century commercial reality. Several factors complicate the traditional analysis:

1. **Globalization:** International brands are increasingly common in American commerce, and many consumers are familiar with foreign-language brand names

1. **Multilingual consumers:** The United States has significant populations of speakers of many languages, creating diverse linguistic contexts within the national market

1. **Digital commerce:** Online shopping and social media expose consumers to brands from around the world, potentially changing how they perceive foreign-language marks

1. **Fashion industry practices:** Many fashion brands intentionally use foreign languages as part of their brand identity and aesthetic, which may affect consumer perception

These evolving circumstances raise questions about whether the traditional doctrine of foreign equivalents adequately serves trademark law’s purposes in the modern marketplace.

Potential Supreme Court Outcomes

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the VETEMENTS case, several possible outcomes could result:

Affirm the Federal Circuit

The Court could affirm the Federal Circuit’s application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents, holding that the translation-based approach is consistent with the Lanham Act and serves the important purpose of preventing monopolization of generic and descriptive language. This outcome would:

- Maintain the current framework for evaluating foreign-language marks

- Require foreign brands to carefully avoid generic or descriptive terms when selecting marks for U.S. registration

- Continue the emphasis on translation where an “appreciable number” of consumers would understand the foreign term

Modify the Doctrine

The Court could hold that the doctrine of foreign equivalents should be applied more narrowly, with greater emphasis on actual consumer perception evidence rather than assumptions about translation. This middle-ground approach might:

- Require the USPTO to present evidence that consumers actually do translate the mark in practice

- Place greater weight on marketplace evidence, consumer surveys, and testimony

- Make it more difficult to refuse registration based solely on linguistic analysis

- Maintain the doctrine as a tool but limit its application to cases with strong evidence of consumer translation

Reject or Severely Limit the Doctrine

The Court could hold that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, as currently applied, conflicts with the Lanham Act’s consumer perception-based approach to trademark protection. This outcome would:

- Require evaluation of foreign-language marks based on how consumers perceive them without translation

- Potentially allow registration of foreign generic terms where most consumers do not understand the translation

- Create greater opportunities for international brands using foreign-language marks

- Raise concerns about potential monopolization of generic terms in foreign languages

Address the Circuit Split

Regardless of the outcome on the merits, if the Court grants certiorari, it would likely resolve the circuit split regarding how foreign-language marks should be evaluated. This would create greater uniformity and predictability in trademark law, which would benefit both trademark applicants and the USPTO.

Practice Pointers for Trademark Practitioners

For attorneys advising clients on trademark matters involving foreign-language marks, the Vêtements case provides several important lessons:

Counseling on Mark Selection

1. **Conduct thorough linguistic analysis:** Research how proposed marks translate across major languages, particularly those commonly spoken in the United States (Spanish, French, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, Arabic, German, Russian, and Italian)

1. **Evaluate consumer perception:** Consider whether the target consumer base is likely to understand or translate the foreign term

1. **Review USPTO precedent:** Examine how the doctrine has been applied to similar terms and language combinations

1. **Consider alternatives:** If a mark faces potential foreign equivalents issues, consider whether modifications (adding arbitrary elements, using stylization, developing composite marks) might address concerns

Prosecution Strategy

1. **Submit evidence proactively:** For marks that might trigger foreign equivalents issues, submit evidence of consumer perception, marketplace use, and evidence that consumers do not translate the term

1. **Argue context:** Emphasize the specific context in which consumers encounter the mark and how that context affects translation likelihood

1. **Distinguish unfavorable precedent:** Carefully distinguish cases where the doctrine was applied, highlighting factual differences

1. **Preserve appellate issues:** If registration is refused, ensure that all relevant arguments are preserved for potential appeal

Pending Applications

For applications currently pending before the USPTO that might be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in VETEMENTS:

1. **Consider suspension:** Applicants may request suspension of proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision if the case could affect their application

1. **Monitor developments:** Stay informed about the status of the petition for certiorari and any subsequent proceedings

1. **Prepare alternative arguments:** Develop legal and factual arguments that would support registration under various possible outcomes

Broader Implications for Trademark Law

Beyond its specific holding, the Vêtements case raises fundamental questions about the nature and purpose of trademark law in an increasingly global and multilingual commercial environment.

Language, Identity, and Commerce

Trademark law has always recognized that marks can carry cultural and linguistic associations that affect consumer perception. The doctrine of foreign equivalents reflects a particular view about how to balance these associations with trademark law’s core purposes.

The case asks whether American trademark law should adopt an increasingly cosmopolitan approach that recognizes consumers’ exposure to and comfort with foreign-language marks, or whether it should maintain traditional protections against monopolization of generic and descriptive language regardless of the language used.

International Harmonization

The outcome of the Vêtements case may affect discussions about international harmonization of trademark law. While treaties like the Paris Convention and the Madrid Protocol create frameworks for international trademark protection, they do not dictate how individual countries should evaluate the registrability of marks.

Greater emphasis on consumer perception, as Vetements advocates, could align U.S. law more closely with approaches in some other jurisdictions. Maintaining the current translation-based approach would preserve a distinctly American framework for evaluating foreign-language marks.

Predictability vs. Flexibility

The case also highlights a recurring tension in intellectual property law between predictability and flexibility. A clear, rule-based approach (such as “always translate foreign terms from modern languages”) provides predictability but may not account for nuanced commercial reality. A flexible, context-dependent approach (such as “evaluate actual consumer perception”) may better serve trademark law’s purposes but creates uncertainty for applicants and examiners.

Conclusion

The Vêtements Supreme Court case presents a critical opportunity for the Court to clarify how the doctrine of foreign equivalents should be applied in modern trademark law. The outcome will have significant implications for international brands, trademark practitioners, and the broader development of trademark doctrine.

As global commerce continues to expand and American markets become increasingly multilingual and culturally diverse, questions about how to evaluate foreign-language marks will only become more pressing. Whether the Supreme Court grants certiorari or denies review, the case has already generated important discussion about the intersection of language, culture, consumer perception, and trademark protection.

For now, international brands seeking U.S. trademark protection should carefully evaluate proposed marks for potential translation issues, consider the doctrine of foreign equivalents in their registration strategy, and monitor developments in the Vêtements case for potential changes to the legal landscape.

-----

## Additional Resources

For further information on trademark law and the doctrine of foreign equivalents, consider these authoritative resources:

- [United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks) - Official source for trademark information, examination guides, and TMEP

- [Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP)](https://tmep.uspto.gov/) - Comprehensive guide to USPTO trademark examination practices

- [United States Courts for the Federal Circuit](https://cafc.uscourts.gov/) - Court opinions and information

- [Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) - Docket information and opinions

- [International Trademark Association (INTA)](https://www.inta.org/) - Professional organization with resources on trademark law

- [World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)](https://www.wipo.int/trademarks/en/) - International trademark information and treaties

-----

**About Yomtobian Law**

Yomtobian Law provides comprehensive legal counsel on intellectual property matters, including trademark selection, prosecution, enforcement, and portfolio management. Our experienced attorneys stay current with developing trademark law to provide clients with strategic, forward-thinking advice.

For consultation regarding trademark matters, including foreign-language marks and international brand protection, please contact Yomtobian Law.

-----

*This article was last updated December 19, 2025. Trademark law continues to evolve, and readers should consult with qualified legal counsel for advice on specific situations.*

**LEGAL DISCLAIMER:** This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal counsel. Trademark law is complex and fact-specific; outcomes depend on individual circumstances. For specific legal advice regarding trademark registration, foreign-language marks, or related intellectual property matters, please consult with an experienced trademark attorney. Yomtobian Law makes no warranties or representations regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information presented.

*© 2025 Yomtobian Law. All rights reserved.*