Lost in Translation? US Supreme Court and TTAB Consider Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

A recent pair of trademark decisions by the US Supreme Court and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) have clarified how non-English language marks will continue to be treated in the United States, highlighting important considerations surrounding the doctrine of foreign equivalents. As non-English language branding continues to proliferate, careful planning and legal review remain essential for effective trademark protection in the United States.

The Supreme Court considered the doctrine of foreign equivalents in the context of a non-English language mark and its literal translation as a bar to registration on distinctiveness grounds, while the TTAB considered the doctrine in the context of a likelihood-of-confusion analysis between two non-English language marks with the same meaning.

Together, the decisions clarify the distinction between evaluating distinctiveness when a non-English mark directly translates to the goods or services it identifies and evaluating likelihood of confusion between two non-English marks that do not translate to the goods or services at issue but share the same meaning. In the former, parties will continue to have a very difficult time obtaining protection, while in the latter the doctrine of foreign equivalents is only one factor in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

On January 12, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear Swiss luxury clothing brand Vetements’ appeal of the Federal Circuit’s decision that prohibited trademark protection of its name VETEMENTS—the French word for “clothing”—for clothing and retail services. The decision reinforces the “doctrine of foreign equivalents,” which has historically posed significant hurdles to US trademark protection for non-English language marks with literal translations.

Later that same month, the TTAB made precedential its August Storck KG v. Florend Indústria e Comércio de Chocolates LTDA decision permitting Brazilian chocolatier Florend Indústria e Comércio de Chocolates LTDA (Florend) to register DANKE (which translates to “thank you” in German) for chocolates, finding no likelihood of confusion with the longstanding MERCI (which translates to “thank you” in French) mark held by German confectioner August Storck KG (Storck).

The ruling highlights nuanced considerations for trademark owners in industries where common expressions are used across multiple languages.

BACKGROUND

‘Danke’ vs. ‘Merci’

Storck has marketed MERCI branded chocolates in the United States since 1965, positioning the brand as a way to say “thank you” through its products. Florend applied to register the stylized mark DANKE for chocolate and chocolate bars, raising the possibility that there could be two different marks for chocolate that translate to “thank you.”

Storck opposed the registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, arguing a likelihood of confusion based on its ownership of multiple registrations for MERCI and related marks for similar goods.

‘Vetements’ or ‘Clothing’

Vetements sought US trademark protection for its mark VETEMENTS, which translates to “clothing” in English. Prior to its appeal, the US Patent and Trademark Office, TTAB, and Federal Circuit found that VETEMENTS is generic, or at best merely descriptive for its apparel and retail services. Vetements petitioned the Supreme Court and argued that trademark protection turns on consumer perception of the mark rather than its dictionary definition.

The government opposed certiorari and reiterated its position that granting exclusive rights to a translated generic word would conflict with the Lanham Act’s purpose of source identification and avoiding consumer confusion.

THE DOCTRINE OF FOREIGN EQUIVALENTS

The doctrine of foreign equivalents requires that trademarks be translated into English and then assessed for registrability, including descriptiveness, genericness, and likelihood of confusion.

The doctrine is not an absolute rule, but rather a guideline for how non-English language marks may be assessed. The threshold question is whether the ordinary American purchaser—including those who know the English language—would “stop and translate” the term. The doctrine generally does not apply where consumers would take the non-English term at face value.

THE DECISIONS

Both cases highlight that consumer perception remains a critical factor in assessing trademarks.

The Board focused on Storck’s registration of MERCI for “chocolate and chocolates” as most similar to Florend’s DANKE mark. The TTAB determined that “an appreciable number of US purchasers” would understand both MERCI (French) and DANKE (German) as meaning “thank you.”

Despite the marks’ shared meaning, the Board found they “look and sound nothing alike,” with pronounced differences: DANKE (“DAHN-kuh”) versus MERCI (“mehr-SEE”). Further, the Board found that the marks have “somewhat dissimilar” commercial impressions “despite sharing an identical meaning.” On balance of the additional DuPont factors, the Board dismissed Storck’s opposition.

In the Vetements case, the brand argued that US consumers are unlikely to translate “Vetements” to “clothing,” but the courts favored the approach that translation, rather than actual perception, is the threshold analysis. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear In re Vetements Group AG [1] leaves in place the prevailing approach: when a foreign term translates to the name of the goods or services, it cannot function as a trademark unless acquired distinctiveness is proven.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

These decisions provide important guidance for both US and international brand owners considering brand expansion, facing opposition to marks with shared meanings in different languages, and seeking US trademark protection.

First, the doctrine of foreign equivalents remains firmly in place. Where a term translates directly to a generic or descriptive word for the relevant goods or services, registration will be denied without strong evidence of acquired distinctiveness. This presents a hurdle for brands that rely on common non-English terms as their principal marks.

Second, the doctrine does not automatically result in a likelihood of confusion where marks differ visually and phonetically, even if they share an identical meaning. For businesses in industries where common expressions are prevalent (e.g., chocolates, greeting cards), this precedent makes clear that conceptual weakness—such as widespread non-trademark use of “thank you”—will limit the strength of a mark as a source identifier and reduce the risk of confusion.

Trademark owners should carefully assess the distinctiveness or potential genericness of non-English language marks prior to seeking registration as well as both the commercial and conceptual strength of their marks in the context of industry practices and advertising.

Where a mark’s meaning is widely used (as with “thank you” for chocolates), the likelihood-of-confusion analysis will focus more on the distinctiveness of the mark’s appearance and sound. Companies may wish to review their brand portfolios to identify marks at risk of challenge due to conceptual weakness and consider emphasizing unique visual and phonetic elements in future filings.

Applicants for marks with non-English language elements should be aware that the Board will apply the doctrine of foreign equivalents but also consider the overall commercial impression and commonality of meaning in the relevant market. Opponents should be prepared to present robust evidence of conceptual and commercial strength, particularly in industries where common expressions are frequently used.

The TTAB’s precedential Storck decision, with the Supreme Court’s action in the Vetements case, affirms the established approach to non-English language trademarks in the United States. For brand owners, the message is clear: non-English words that translate to generic or descriptive terms face significant hurdles in registration, and similarities in meaning alone do not establish confusion if marks are visually and phonetically distinct.

As non-English language branding continues to proliferate, careful planning and legal review remain essential for effective trademark protection in the United States.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Trademarks simply translating to the same English meaning does not mean they are necessarily confusingly similar. The likelihood-of-confusion analysis has to take other factors into account, such as visual and phonetic differences.
• The doctrine of foreign equivalents remains a significant hurdle to US trademark registration: non-English terms that translate directly to generic or descriptive English words will face high obstacles to registration without robust evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
• Legal outcomes may hinge on not only the meaning of a mark but also its appearance, sound, and commercial impression, emphasizing the importance of holistic brand planning and legal review.