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
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026
Publications
In Law360, Trump Debarment Threat Calls for Targeted Defense Plan
Partners Ashley Callen and David Robbins authored an article for Law360 examining how entities should respond when suspension or debarment is threatened directly by the president, rather than initiated through the usual agency-driven process.
August 6, 2026
Publications
"DC Circuit Undercuts Congress's Subpoena Power: Important New Authority for Targets of Congressional Investigations," National Law Journal
In the National Law Journal, Congressional Investigations Co-Chair Emily Loeb, Special Counsel David Manners-Weber, and Associate Kate Mather examine a recent DC Circuit decision that gives fresh weight to 2020 Supreme Court dicta on common-law privileges in congressional investigations.
July 30, 2026