Dates And Trademarks: EU Rejects '1926' For Watches

Is a sign consisting of a date sufficiently distinctive to be registered as a trademark in the watch and jewellery sector? In September 2025, the General Court of the European Union answered this in the negative regarding the application by watchmaker Montres Tudor SA to register '1926' as a trademark right, as Laura Vincent explains.

Distinctiveness is a key criterion for registration of a trademark right.

Trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods, are refused registration (Article 7(1) (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trade Mark).

Can a four-digit date function as a distinctive trademark?

The use of a four-digit date to signify a year can have various meanings: the date of creation of a product, a company, a vintage or an anniversary date.

While these meanings may appear attractive from a marketing point of view, they nevertheless make it very difficult – if not impossible – to protect them as a trademark, at least in the world of watches and jewellery. This can be seen in the recent judgment regarding the attempted registration of '1926'.

Background to the trademark distinctiveness ruling

On 6 July 2023, Montres Tudor SA filed an international registration designating the EU for the sign '1926' and designating goods in class 14, namely: "Watches, namely watches, wristwatches, parts of timepieces and accessories for timepieces not included in other classes, clocks and other chronometric instruments, chronometers, chronographs (watchmaking), watch straps, dials (watchmaking), cases and cases for watchmaking and jewellery, watch movements and parts thereof; jewellery; precious stones and semi-precious stones; precious metals and their alloys; pins (jewellery); cufflinks."

In 9 February 2024, EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) partially rejected that trademark application in respect of "Clocks, namely watches, wristwatches, parts of timepieces and accessories for time-pieces not included in other classes, clocks and other chronometric instruments, chronometers, chronographs (watches), watch straps, dials (watches), cases and cases for watchmaking and jewellery, watch movements and parts thereof; jewellery" for lack of distinctive character, the sign '1926' being considered to be descriptive of a characteristic of the goods in question, in that it refers to the time/start of production of the goods covered.

Montres Tudor contested this decision. However, on 25 June 2024, EUIPO's Board of Appeal upheld the partial rejection decision. In essence, the Board considered that:

• The sign '1926' will immediately be interpreted as designating the year in which the goods were designed or the year in which the company producing them was created and, in addition, that interpretation constituted a purely laudatory message praising the tradition and durability of the goods bearing the mark in question;
• The year 1926 serves to indicate the prestige of the company;
• The year 1926 is cited as the year of birth of the mark 'The Tudor' on the applicant's website and identifies the origin of the goods in question.

It thus concluded that the international registration '1926' did not allow the identification of the commercial origin of the goods it designated and that it was therefore devoid of any distinctive character.

It is in this context that Montres Tudor brought an action before the EU General Court.

Appeal before the General Court and arguments of the applicant

In support of its action, the applicant relied on the fact that '1926' has no significant meaning in the watch and jewellery sector. It can be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. That sign is evocative and capable of being perceived as a distinctive or symbolic element.

Montres Tudor argued, among other things, that the number 1926 is a specific number that could not be extended in the 1920s and that the watches it sells do not have an Art Deco design.

It also submitted that, unlike wine or other agricultural products, the year of production is not an indicator of quality or exclusivity for watches and jewellery.

Finally, it emphasised that in the field of luxury goods, a four-figure year would be more linked to the notion of the brand's heritage, evoking a sense of tradition and historical significance.

Findings of the Court

In its judgment of 10 September 2025, the Court confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

It considered that, by using realistic and common vintages, companies generally want to refer to the year of their foundation or, for advertising purposes, to the tradition and durability of their goods bearing the mark in question, or even to refer to the year in which the goods were conceived.

In addition, in the watchmaking and jewellery sectors, a company's tradition is a guarantee of experience, knowledge and competence.

Accordingly, the Court considered that the sign in question, which refers to the year 1926, may be interpreted as designating the year of design of the goods concerned.

In addition, since it is an old year, this sign can refer to the durability of these products, their quality, as well as the tradition and prestige of the company producing them.

The sign '1926' is therefore not merely evocative, but may be perceived by the relevant public, immediately and without further thought, as a description of the characteristics of the goods in question. That sign is therefore not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from those of other undertakings.

The Court stated, inter alia, that it is not necessary to establish that it is specifically '1926' which conveys such an image of quality, or to examine whether that year has any significant significance in the watchmaking and jewellery sectors.

It also pointed out that it is sufficient that at least one of the potential meanings of the sign falls within the scope of the complaint of descriptiveness to conclude that there is no distinctiveness.

Furthermore, the applicant's argument that previous registrations relating to years were accepted by EUIPO was dismissed out of hand by the Court on the ground that: "the applicant does not wish to invoke to his advantage any illegality committed in favour of another person in order to obtain an identical situation."

The challenge of choosing a date for a jewellery trademark

While a year can be a marketing asset, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to acquire exclusive rights to such a sign, at least in the watchmaking and jewellery sectors.

This judgment echoes, to a certain extent, the Fauré Le Page case for which a preliminary question is pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning, in that case, the misleading nature of a fictitious date within a trademark.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.