Is ‘Clothing’ Just Clothing?
Vetements Forces the Supreme Court to Decide

September 11, 2025

Trademark fights are often technical affairs, tucked away in administrative decisions and Federal Circuit opinions. But every so often, a case emerges that captures wider attention because it forces trademark law to confront modern business realities. That is the story of Vetements Group AG, a Swiss luxury fashion house whose name literally means “clothing” in French.

What began as a routine refusal at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has become a high-stakes Supreme Court petition that could redefine how foreign-language marks are treated in the United States. At the center of the dispute is the doctrine of foreign equivalents—a longstanding rule that requires decision makers to translate foreign words into English when assessing whether a mark is generic or descriptive.

From Refusal to Federal Circuit Affirmation

Vetements applied in 2020 to register its name for clothing and related retail services. The PTO refused, finding the mark generic or, at best, merely descriptive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed, reasoning that “vetements” translates directly into “clothing” under the doctrine of foreign equivalents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed, holding that French is common enough among U.S. consumers that they would translate “vetements,” and once translated, the word directly names the genus of goods. That linguistic move was decisive—the name could not be registered.

The Supreme Court Petition: Translation vs. Perception

In August 2025, Vetements asked the Supreme Court to step in. The petition frames the issue in strikingly simple terms: should the registrability of a foreign-language mark depend on its English translation, or on how American consumers actually perceive it in the marketplace?

To make its case, Vetements invokes the Court’s own reasoning in USPTO v. Booking.com. There, the Court rejected a categorical rule that “generic.com” terms could never be trademarks. Instead, it emphasized that genericness must be judged by consumer perception. Vetements argues the same principle should apply here: fewer than one percent of Americans are fluent in French, and for most consumers, “Vetements” signifies a high-fashion label, not the generic word for “clothing.”

The Doctrine Under Pressure

The doctrine of foreign equivalents has always been more fragile than its longevity suggests. Courts have described it as a guideline rather than an ironclad rule, warning against mechanical translation. Yet in practice, the PTO often applies it rigidly to familiar languages such as French and Spanish, while ignoring it in the case of more obscure ones. This patchwork leaves global businesses uncertain whether their marks will be judged by translation or by actual marketplace use.

The inconsistency is especially jarring in light of the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence. In cases like Booking.com, and earlier in disputes over descriptive terms that acquired distinctiveness (Pretzel Crisps, for example), the Court and lower tribunals have consistently emphasized the centrality of consumer perception. Vetements’ petition insists that the doctrine of foreign equivalents lags behind this shift and risks sidelining the very consumers the Lanham Act is meant to protect.

Lessons from Parallel Trademark Battles

Other high-profile disputes highlight how consumer perception has reshaped trademark law. In Pretzel Crisps, the question was whether a descriptive term had crossed the line into genericness. Courts ultimately concluded that consumer understanding—not abstract linguistic logic—was the decisive factor. Similarly, in La Peregrina, involving the name of a famous pearl, courts considered how American consumers would encounter the term, not how it might translate literally.

These cases illustrate a broader trend: modern trademark law has been steadily moving away from rigid categorical rules and toward evidence-driven inquiries into how real consumers understand words in the marketplace. The Vetements petition can be seen as the next step in this trajectory.

Why Brand Owners Should Pay Attention

The outcome of this case could reshape how global companies approach U.S. brand strategy. If the Court grants review and sides with Vetements, it would align the doctrine of foreign equivalents with the consumer-centric approach that dominates other areas of trademark law. That would make it easier for companies with non-English marks to secure protection, provided they can demonstrate distinctiveness in the eyes of U.S. consumers.

If, on the other hand, the Court declines to hear the case or affirms the Federal Circuit, the doctrine may remain entrenched, leaving non-English marks vulnerable to refusal even when the consuming public perceives them as distinctive. Either way, the case underscores the importance of building evidence of consumer perception—through surveys, sales data, advertising, and media recognition—early in the life of a brand.

Looking Ahead

The government’s response to Vetements’ petition is due this fall, and the Court will decide in the coming months whether to grant review. If it does, it will mark the first time in decades that the justices have addressed the doctrine of foreign equivalents directly.

The implications extend well beyond fashion. In a global marketplace where brand names routinely cross linguistic borders, the Court’s decision could determine whether trademark law continues to prioritize translation, or whether it will embrace consumer perception as its guiding star. For practitioners, the Vetements case is not just about one word in French—it is about whether trademark law itself will evolve to reflect the realities of twenty-first-century commerce.