The ECJ clarifies the conditions that may lead to the revocation of an assigned trademark.
By its judgment of 18 December 2025, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) adds a new chapter to the ongoing dispute between Jean-Charles Castelbajac and PMJC, the assignee of his trademarks, and clarifies the conditions under which a patronymic trademark may be revoked for misleading use following its assignment.
In this case, following the termination of the contractual relationship between Jean-Charles Castelbajac and PMJC, the designer sought the partial revocation of certain trademarks on the grounds that the use of his patronymic name suggested that he was still involved in the design of the products.
The ECJ was therefore asked to determine whether a trademark consisting of a designer’s name may be revoked where its use, after assignment, leads the public to believe, incorrectly, that the designer is still involved in the creation of the products.
According to the Court, the central question is whether the average consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, is actually misled. In this respect, the Court specifies that misleading use may result from various factors, such as the emphasis placed on a “stylistic authorship” likely to influence the consumer’s economic behavior.
However, the Court confirms its previous case law (ECJ, 30 March 2006, C-259/04), according to which a patronymic trademark cannot become misleading solely because the designer whose name it bears no longer participates in the design of the products. The average consumer is well aware that products marketed under a well-known name are not necessarily designed personally by historical creator.
In this case, the ECJ held that the presence on the products of elements characteristic of the designer’s creative universe constitutes a factor capable of misleading the public, leading it to wrongly attribute the stylistic authorship of the products to the designer.
This decision, which strengthens consumer protection, also contributes to framing the use of patronymic trademarks after their assignment: use that creates confusion as to the designer’s involvement may lead to revocation of the rights. It follows that both the assignment and the use of such trademarks must be carefully managed in order to limit legal risks.