Fashion Loves a Paradox: Vetements Trademark Unraveled By Irony

“Vetements” is the French word for clothing. It’s also the name of the once-cult-favorite, semi-ironic, semi-luxury fashion brand founded in 2014 by Georgian brothers Demna and Guram Gvasalia. The brand rose to prominence with its deconstructed silhouettes, logo-heavy basics, and self-aware commentary on the fashion industry from within. While Demna went on to creatively direct Balenciaga and, more recently, Gucci, Vetements retained its own avant-garde identity, one that has now become the subject of a legal irony befitting the brand’s reputation. 

May 21, 2025 marked the end of a five-year legal battle that began with the USPTO and ended at the US Court of Appeals, wherein Vetements Group AG officially lost its attempt to register the name “Vetements” as a trademark for clothing in the United States. The reason? The name is too generic (haha). 

The Backstory

Between 2020 and 2021, Vetements Group AG filed several trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for “Vetements” in both stylized and standard character formats. The company applied to register the marks across multiple international classes, including clothing, eyewear, handbags, jewelry, and retail services.

The USPTO granted registration in some categories (eyewear, handbags, jewelry, and retail), but flatly rejected the mark as to “clothing”—the literal translation of “vetements” as well as the brand’s core offering. According to the USPTO, naming a clothing brand “clothing” albeit in French, is not just descriptive; it’s generic. In trademark law, this is an important distinction. 

Related marks applied for by Vetements Group AG like “VTMNTS,” “VTM,” and “Vetements Limited Edition” were successfully registered for clothing. These were presumably distinct enough, either by being abbreviated or sufficiently removed from the literal meaning to fly above the genericness bar. 

Generic vs. Descriptive: Why It Matters

Under U.S. trademark law, descriptive marks, those that describe some quality of the goods or services sold, can sometimes be registered if the applicant proves “secondary meaning”—that the public now associates the name with a specific brand rather than its dictionary definition. This can be demonstrated with evidence like sales numbers, press coverage, and advertising spend. According to the Court, Vetements failed to show sufficient acquired distinctiveness among U.S. consumers.

In its responses to the USPTO, Vetements attempted to argue that the brand had acquired distinctiveness—pointing to media buzz, sales, and cultural presence as proof of secondary meaning. But the USPTO wasn’t convinced, and even used the brand’s media presence against them by using a 2016 Glamcult interview, where Demna and Guram hinted at their ethos:

“We didn’t want to use a personal name, but a generic one that expressed our approach.”
— GLAMCULT 2016

The brand’s intention to use a generic term to make an ironic statement about fashion worked creatively—but backfired legally (although this seems mostly like an unfortunate word choice rather than using the word generic in its relevant legal sense). The brand’s intentional choice to strip away distinctiveness for the sake of commentary ended up undermining its legal position.

This argument didn’t work because “Vetements” goes beyond describing a characteristic of the product, it blatantly states what the product is. In U.S. trademark law, generic names are ineligible for federal trademark protection because they are incapable of indicating source. No matter how famous or profitable your brand is, the law doesn’t let anyone monopolize common language.

Naming a clothing brand “Clothing” is peak generic.

Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

The Court pointed out that French is widely taught and spoken in the U.S., and the average American consumer would “stop and translate” the word “Vetements” into “Clothing.” Therefore it applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents, which requires that foreign words from “common, modern languages” be translated into English to determine their trademark eligibility. Under the doctrine the mark is generic, not distinctive, to American consumers.

The Future of Vetements

Because the name was refused on the grounds of genericness, Vetements doesn’t have exclusive rights to the name as it would with a registered trademark. This means anyone else is free to use “Vetements” to sell clothing. It also means that no one can stop Vetements from using the name either. The name is essentially in “free-for-all” territory.

The brand has already proven it doesn’t need a U.S. trademark registration to succeed. In fact, refusal might even add to the brand’s lore. In a strange way, the refusal only reinforces Vetements’ anti-establishment ethos and the twist of irony is fittingly on-brand.

So, Vetements will likely keep making and selling clothes, critics will keep debating whether Demna’s trolling or innovating, and the brand will go on without U.S. trademark protection for its name. 

Takeaway for Your Brand

Still, this ruling is a cautionary tale for designers choosing names for their brands. What might sound chic, clever, or elevated in another language might be viewed very differently under U.S. trademark law. Even foreign words can be considered generic if their meaning is easily understood by U.S. consumers. This twist of irony seems fittingly on-brand

• Distinctiveness matters. In design and in trademarks, originality is your biggest asset. The more creative, unique, and original your brand name, the more likely to qualify for trademark registration. Make sure your brand name isn’t merely descriptive or generic for the goods you’re selling.
  

• Foreign words aren't a loophole. If the English-speaking public is even somewhat likely to recognize the translation, the USPTO may treat it just like an English word.

• It’s possible to make it without a trademark. Vetements did. But that’s a high-risk act most brands can’t afford.
  

Want to avoid Vetements’ fate? 

Naming your brand is one of the most creatively enthralling, and legally risky, moves you’ll make. Before you invest in branding, press, or product, make sure your name is actually protectable.

Download the free Brand Protection Guide (all the way at the bottom of home page) that breaks down the essentials every brand owner should know to build a brand that lasts.

In re Vetements Group AG, Nos. 2023-2050, 2023-2051, 2025 WL 3271156 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025).