A Lawsuit by the Clothing Label Vetements May Result in a Supreme Court Decision on the Trademark "Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents"
A basic rule of trademark law is that trademark protection cannot be obtained for a term that is “generic,” meaning that it simply designates the type of goods at issue. For example, the term “apple” is generic when used to sell apples, so an apple producer could not obtain a trademark for APPLE. By contrast, a computer manufacturer can obtain trademark rights in the term APPLE—because the term does not describe the manufacturer’s products.
What about if the term is generic in a foreign language? For example, could a Japanese apple producer seek to trademark the term RINGO in the US? Under the “doctrine of foreign equivalents,” that would also be impermissible. The doctrine directs courts to translate foreign words into English when assessing whether they are generic—and also whether they are similar in meaning or connotation to an English-language mark when assessing likelihood of confusion. Thus, in one case involving a Japanese company, federal courts in New York rejected a Japanese sake producer’s claim of US trademark rights in the term OTOKOYAMA, concluding that the term in Japanese designates a type of sake produced by multiple breweries. See Otokoyama Co. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 7 F. App’x 112 (2d Cir. 2001).
Not all courts apply this doctrine as a matter of course, however. The Federal Circuit, which reviews decisions of the US Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), does not apply the doctrine “[w]hen it is unlikely that an American buyer will translate the foreign mark.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Supreme Court may soon have the opportunity to clarify the applicability of the doctrine. This year, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO’s refusal to register the mark VETEMENTS for the prominent clothing label of that name, reasoning that “vêtements” is the generic French word for “clothing.” See In re Vetements Grp. AG, 137 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Vetements has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, even as applied by the Federal Circuit, does not sufficiently take into account the real-life perception of consumers in the U.S. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the resulting opinion should be of interest for foreign brand owners seeking or enforcing US trademark protection for terms in their own language.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Not all courts apply this doctrine as a matter of course, however. The Federal Circuit, which reviews decisions of the US Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), does not apply the doctrine “[w]hen it is unlikely that an American buyer will translate the foreign mark.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Supreme Court may soon have the opportunity to clarify the applicability of the doctrine. This year, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO’s refusal to register the mark VETEMENTS for the prominent clothing label of that name, reasoning that “vêtements” is the generic French word for “clothing.” See In re Vetements Grp. AG, 137 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Vetements has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, even as applied by the Federal Circuit, does not sufficiently take into account the real-life perception of consumers in the U.S. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the resulting opinion should be of interest for foreign brand owners seeking or enforcing US trademark protection for terms in their own language.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
A basic rule of trademark law is that trademark protection cannot be obtained for a term that is “generic,” meaning that it simply designates the type of goods at issue. For example, the term “apple” is generic when used to sell apples, so an apple producer could not obtain a trademark for APPLE. By contrast, a computer manufacturer can obtain trademark rights in the term APPLE—because the term does not describe the manufacturer’s products.
What about if the term is generic in a foreign language? For example, could a Japanese apple producer seek to trademark the term RINGO in the US? Under the “doctrine of foreign equivalents,” that would also be impermissible. The doctrine directs courts to translate foreign words into English when assessing whether they are generic—and also whether they are similar in meaning or connotation to an English-language mark when assessing likelihood of confusion. Thus, in one case involving a Japanese company, federal courts in New York rejected a Japanese sake producer’s claim of US trademark rights in the term OTOKOYAMA, concluding that the term in Japanese designates a type of sake produced by multiple breweries. See Otokoyama Co. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 7 F. App’x 112 (2d Cir. 2001).
Not all courts apply this doctrine as a matter of course, however. The Federal Circuit, which reviews decisions of the US Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), does not apply the doctrine “[w]hen it is unlikely that an American buyer will translate the foreign mark.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Supreme Court may soon have the opportunity to clarify the applicability of the doctrine. This year, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO’s refusal to register the mark VETEMENTS for the prominent clothing label of that name, reasoning that “vêtements” is the generic French word for “clothing.” See In re Vetements Grp. AG, 137 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Vetements has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, even as applied by the Federal Circuit, does not sufficiently take into account the real-life perception of consumers in the U.S. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the resulting opinion should be of interest for foreign brand owners seeking or enforcing US trademark protection for terms in their own language.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Not all courts apply this doctrine as a matter of course, however. The Federal Circuit, which reviews decisions of the US Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), does not apply the doctrine “[w]hen it is unlikely that an American buyer will translate the foreign mark.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Supreme Court may soon have the opportunity to clarify the applicability of the doctrine. This year, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTO’s refusal to register the mark VETEMENTS for the prominent clothing label of that name, reasoning that “vêtements” is the generic French word for “clothing.” See In re Vetements Grp. AG, 137 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Vetements has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the doctrine of foreign equivalents, even as applied by the Federal Circuit, does not sufficiently take into account the real-life perception of consumers in the U.S. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the resulting opinion should be of interest for foreign brand owners seeking or enforcing US trademark protection for terms in their own language.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026