Designer brand

without designer

deceptive?

2. April 2026

of

Clemens Pfitzer

Imagine you buy an item of clothing with the name of a famous designer on the label. You assume that this designer created the collection. But in reality, the designer has long since had nothing to do with the company. Can the company pretend that the designer is still on board?

What happened?

The French fashion designer Jean-Charles de Castelbajac founded a fashion company named after him in 1978. The company owned the trademark “JC de Castelbajac” and sold clothing for women, men and children, among other things. The designer created the collections himself.

When the company ran into financial difficulties and became insolvent, PMJC bought up all of its assets in 2011. This also included the trademark rights to “JC de CASTELBAJAC”. The designer stayed on board for a few more years and worked for the new company until the end of 2015.

After that, they parted ways. Jean-Charles de Castelbajac founded a new company called Castelbajac Créative and continued his creative work there. PMJC saw this as an infringement of its trademark rights and sued the designer in 2018.

The designer defended himself with a counterattack and demanded that PMJC should lose the trademark rights to his name. His reasoning: PMJC had used the trademark in such a way that customers believed he was still behind the designs, although this was no longer the case.

There was one particularly serious point. PMJC had used patterns and embellishments on the garments sold under the trademark “JC de CASTELBAJAC” that clearly originated from the design handwriting of Jean-Charles de Castelbajac. In fact, the laws to these designs still belonged to the designer himself. They had not been transferred with the takeover. Two courts ruled that PMJC had infringed Jean-Charles de Castelbajac’s copyright . In other words, PMJC copied the designer’s creative signature without being entitled to do so and sold the products under his name.

What did the French courts decide?

The Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the designer and partially revoked PMJC’s trademark rights. The court found that PMJC had used the trademark deceptively, as customers were under the impression that Jean-Charles de Castelbajac was still responsible for the designs.

PMJC appealed against this decision to the highest French court, the Cour de cassation. The company referred to an earlier ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from 2006, the so-called Emanuel case. This case concerned the British designer Elizabeth Emanuel, who had designed Princess Diana’s wedding dress, among other things. When she sold her company and the buyer continued to use the name “ELIZABETH EMANUEL” as a trademark, the designer sued. The ECJ ruled at the time that the mere fact that a designer no longer worked for the company did not make the trademark misleading. Consumers know in principle that the designer himself does not always have to be behind a designer’s name.

PMJC now argued that, according to this case law, the trademark could never be revoked on the grounds of deception. As the Cour de cassation was not sure whether this interpretation was correct, it referred the question to the ECJ.

What did the ECJ decide?

In his Judgment of 18.12.2025 – Ref. C-168/24 the ECJ ruled that a designer’s trademark can be revoked if, taking into account all the circumstances, it is used in such a way that the average, attentive consumer mistakenly assumes that the designer has contributed to the design of the products.

It’s not just origin and quality that count

The law lists the type, quality and geographical origin of goods as examples of deception. However, the ECJ has clarified that this list is not exhaustive. A trademark can also be deceptive with regard to other characteristics. This includes, in particular, the question of who designed a product. The ECJ has coined the term “creative origin” for this purpose. Particularly in the case of fashion, the question of which designer is behind a collection can be of considerable importance for the purchasing decision.

The name alone is not a deception

At the same time, the ECJ confirmed that it is generally permissible to continue to use a trademark with a designer’s name, even if the designer has left the company. According to the court, consumers are generally able to understand that not every product with a designer’s name on the label was actually designed by that designer personally. The separation of designer and trademark therefore does not automatically lead to the loss of trademark rights.

But: If you deliberately deceive, you lose

The decisive factor is the way in which the trademark is actually used. If a company deliberately creates the impression that the designer is still involved in the design, the trademark can be revoked. However, there must be concrete circumstances for this. A mere presumption is not sufficient. Either actual misleading of consumers must be proven or there must at least be a serious risk of this.

In the present case, the ECJ saw a particularly strong indication of such deception in the fact that PMJC used design elements from the unmistakable design signature of Jean-Charles de Castelbajac, even though the designer retained the rights to them. Anyone who applies a designer’s typical patterns to items of clothing and then sells them under the designer’s name brand reinforces the impression that the designer created the products. And precisely this impression was wrong in this case.

Why is this judgment important?

In the fashion industry, it is common for trademarks bearing the name of their founder to last longer than the company itself. Think of Chanel, Dior, Yves Saint Laurent or Givenchy, for example. The eponymous designers are either no longer active or have already passed away, and yet the trademarks continue to exist. According to the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), this continues to be unproblematic. The decisive factor is whether the company’s conduct deliberately creates the false impression that the designer is still personally involved in the products.

The ECJ based its decision on two fundamental ideas. Firstly, it is about protecting consumers, who must be put in a position to make an informed purchasing decision. Secondly, fair competition should be warranted. It must not be the case that a trademark becomes an unfair instrument for attracting customers due to the way it is used.

What does this mean in practice?

The mere fact that a designer no longer works for the company does not jeopardize the trademark. In principle, the trademark may continue to be used. It only becomes problematic if the company deliberately creates the impression that the designer is still creatively involved. This can be done, for example, through advertising that suggests a continued collaboration or by copying designs of the former owner without authorization. To be on the safe side, a separate design identity should be developed for the trademark and communicated transparently.

The ruling strengthens the position of designers who want to defend themselves against their name being misused. Anyone who can prove that the acquirer is deliberately creating the impression of a continuing involvement now has a clear legal basis to demand that the trademark be revoked. It is particularly helpful to clearly document your own copyrights to designs and to take consistent action in the event of infringements.

Anyone taking over a trademark with a designer name should contractually regulate exactly which designs, patterns and creative elements are transferred and which remain with the designer. The clearer this boundary is drawn, the lower the risk of subsequent disputes.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

Trademark law!

Contact form

Call now!