On January 12, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to review a Federal Circuit decision upholding the doctrine of foreign equivalents, which determines a non-English word’s trademark registrability based on its English translation.[1] The case, In re Vetements Group AG, has drawn widespread attention due to its potential ramifications on what words can be registered as trademarks, especially for foreign corporations like the Swiss luxury fashion brand and trademark applicant, Vetements Group AG.[2] The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari solidifies the Federal Circuit’s application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents and reinforces the continued importance of non-English languages and the Americans who speak them in the United States (“U.S.”).
One of trademark law’s main goals is to prevent consumer confusion regarding the source of a good or service.[3] Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a non-English word mark’s registrability as a trademark is evaluated based on its similarity or dissimilarity of meaning to English word marks, rather than on the untranslated word mark’s appearance and pronunciation.[4] This doctrine ensures that American consumers, irrespective of the languages they speak, receive the protections against misleadingly labeled goods that lay at the heart of U.S. trademark law.
On March 1, 2025, almost three months before the Federal Circuit decided In re Vetements Group AG, President Trump signed Executive Order (“EO”) 14224, which, for the first time in U.S. history, made English the official national language.[5] To help implement EO 14224, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued guidance which made it clear that English is the “authoritative version of all federal information.”[6] The DOJ justified designating an official language as “a forward-looking strategy to enhance . . . economic integration.”[7] This policy articulated by the President and the DOJ, when compared to In re Vetements Group AG, highlights an important emerging conflict between how the Trump Administration and trademark law view the importance of non-English languages in the U.S. economy.
In In re Vetements Group AG, the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) refusal to register “VETEMENTS” as a word mark for clothing because “vêtement,” as the French word for clothing, is an unregistrable generic term.[8] To determine whether the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies, TTAB and the Federal Circuit examine whether the ordinary American purchaser, when encountering a word from a commonly spoken language, would stop and translate the word mark to its English meaning before purchasing.[9] If this is unlikely, the doctrine of foreign equivalents does not apply, but, if this is likely, the doctrine of foreign equivalents does apply.[10]
Ultimately the Federal Circuit applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents to “VETEMENTS” because Vetements Group failed to show that an “ordinary American purchaser” is unlikely to translate “VETEMENTS” into its English meaning.[11] Vetements Group sought to sell clothing under a word mark that literally translated to “clothing” in French. Further, the Federal Circuit agreed with TTAB “that ‘vetement’ has an easily recognizable direct translation and is not an idiom which is not equivalent to its direct English translation.”[12] In other words, a consumer seeking to purchase clothing would likely associate, and thus translate, “VETEMENTS” to the word “clothing.”
The Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the doctrine of foreign equivalents closely tracks how U.S. trademark law approaches registration based on the meaning of English words.[13] The doctrine of foreign equivalents, by translating common non-English words into English before assessing a word mark’s registrability, enables TTAB and the Federal Circuit to apply this test equally to registration determinations irrespective of the proposed word mark’s origin language.[14] This helps to maintain consistency between U.S. trademark law’s approach to determining the registrability of English words versus non-English words.
Some scholars argue that the doctrine of foreign equivalents is needlessly inconsistent and confusing due to the burden of proving whether the “ordinary American purchaser” could—let alone would—translate a non-English word given the U.S.’s large, diverse population.[15] However, the doctrine of foreign equivalents, as articulated in In re Vetements Group AG, is not meant to ease a would-be trademark owner’s burden of showing whether the ordinary American purchaser would translate a non-English word. Instead, it furthers trademark’s policy goal of protecting consumers who speak common languages, including English, from confusing the source of goods and services available in the marketplace. In re Vetements Group AG reaffirms the doctrine of foreign equivalents’ importance and prioritizes protecting American consumers—and by extension helping producers compete economically—without expecting them to learn an entirely new language in the name of “economic integration.”[16]
Trademark law’s policy of affording commonly spoken languages similar protections, as shown in In re Vetements Group AG, stands in stark contrast to some of the sweeping policy changes enacted by the Trump administration. EO 14224 functionally established a new federal policy of expecting all Americans to speak English. In doing so, it went so far as rescinding EO 13166, which had directed federal agencies to improve access to their programs and activities for non-English speakers.[17] While EO 14224 did not explicitly direct federal agencies to rescind non-English materials, its impact still devalues non-English languages and attempts to diminish their importance within federal institutions.[18] This, in turn, diminishes the dignity of Americans who cannot speak English and puts their access to governmental services and protections like trademark registration at risk.
Further, despite EO 14224 claiming to help “empower new citizens to achieve the American dream . . . [and] open[] doors economically,” its rescission of EO 13166 is self-defeating.[19] The Trump Administration’s goal of encouraging integration into American society and the economy is not possible without first giving immigrants and their families access to the information, services, and legal protections that enable them to do so. In the case of trademarks, that means would-be trademark owners must understand not only how to navigate the complicated trademark registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but also how trademark registration could protect their business. Only once they understand this can they decide whether to register a trademark in the first place.
Trademark law writ large has found a way to encourage all Americans to participate in the economy, both as consumers and producers. Through policy-based doctrines like that of foreign equivalents, TTAB and the Federal Circuit have continued to extend trademark protections to all languages commonly spoken in the U.S., not just the one language the Trump Administration wants people to speak.
While courts have not yet attempted to remove protections against registration for non-English foreign words, if the rapid policy swings observed in 2025 continue, substantial doctrinal changes could be on the horizon in 2026. The good news is that, in its In re Vetements Group AG decision, the Federal Circuit at least appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s push to disfavor non-English languages and, by extension, non-English-speaking Americans. By doing so, the Federal Circuit court recognized the important roles non-English languages, multilingual Americans, and non-English-speaking Americans play in our society and economy. Let us hope, for the sake of all of us in our nation of immigrants, this trend continues at all levels of the judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court.
[1] In re Vetements Group AG, 137 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 2026 WL 79820 (U.S. 2026).
[2] Ivan Moreno, Trademark Cases to Watch in 2026, Law360 (Jan. 2, 2026, 12:03 PM ET), https://www.law360.com/articles/2423255.
[3] J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks §23.36 (5th ed. 2025).
[4] Id. (citations omitted) (“Under the doctrine of ‘foreign equivalents,’ foreign words from common languages are translated into English to determine genericness, descriptiveness, as well as similarity of meaning and connotation in order to ascertain confusing similarity with English word marks.”); 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (“No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature . . . .”).
[5] Exec. Order No. 14,224, 90 Fed. Reg. 11363 Sec. 3(a) (Mar. 1, 2025).
[6] Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Att’y Gen., Implementation of Executive Order No. 14,224:
Designating English as the Official Language of The United States of America 3 (2025), https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1407776/dl.
[7] Id. at 1.
[8] In re Vetements Group AG, 137 F.4th 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 2026 WL 79820 (U.S. 2026).
Under U.S. trademark law, words that are “generic” for a category of goods, such as “DAIRY” for dairy products, cannot be register as a trademark. Id. at 1332 (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989–90 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (“A term is generic, and thus precluded from registration on the Principal Register, when the ‘relevant public primarily use[s] or understand[s] the term sought to be protected to refer to the genus of goods or services in question.’”). Note that TTAB also refused registration for a trademark for a logo that consisted of the word “vetements” in a stylized, blocky font. For the sake of brevity, this article will focus on the word mark “VETEMENTS.” Similarly, while TTAB also denied registration on the alternative ground that “VETEMENTS” is a merely descriptive term that has not acquired secondary meaning, this article will focus on “VETEMENTS” being generic for both brevity and to reflect the Federal Circuit’s focus in In re Vetements AG.
[9] Id. at 1331.
[10] Id. at 1323.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 1330 (emphasis added)citations omitted)(quotations omitted).
[13] E.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
[14] McCarthy, supra note 3.
[15] E.g., Anne Gilson LaLonde, Far From Fluent: Making Sense of the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents, 112 Trademark Rep. 771, 804–10 (2022).
[16] McCarthy, supra note 3(“The rationale of the doctrine of foreign equivalents is that a non-English word familiar to an appreciable segment of American purchasers may be confusingly similar to its English equivalent. The doctrine acknowledges the perceptions of ordinary American consumers who are multilingual: they are protected from the likelihood of confusion.”).
[17] Exec. Order No. 13,116, 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (Aug. 11, 2000).
[18] Exec. Order No. 14,224, 90 Fed. Reg. 11363 Sec. 3(b) (Mar. 1, 2025). See, e.g., Website Policies, Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (Sep. 29, 2025), https://www.fdic.gov/about/website-policies (“[I]n accordance with Executive Order 14224 and the Attorney General’s implementing guidance, the FDIC notes that English is the official language of the United States and English language versions of FDIC materials are the authoritative version of such materials.” (emphasis added)).
[19] Exec. Order No. 14,224, 90 Fed. Reg. at Sec. 1.