“MAISON DE LA SOIE”: When a “Maison” Remains Descriptive for Silk Household Linen

In a decision issued on 5 February 2026, the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) upheld the refusal of protection in the European Union of the word mark “MAISON DE LA SOIE”.

The case involved a French company established in the South-West of France, active in the marketing of high-end silk textile products, which sought EU-wide protection for this name in relation to household linen goods.

‍

1. An Application Filed by a French Silk Specialist

The appeal was brought by MAISON DE LA SOIE, a French company located in Serres-Castet, near Pau, holder of an international registration designating the European Union.

The mark applied for consisted of the word sign:

MAISON DE LA SOIE

covering, in particular, goods in Class 24, such as:

• bed blankets,
• bed linen,
• household linen.

In support of its application, the company relied on evidence of its growing reputation on the French silk market, including press coverage, social media presence, commercial figures, advertising materials, and accounting certificates.  

‍

2. A Sign Perceived as Descriptive by French-Speaking Consumers

The EUIPO considered that the expression “Maison de la Soie” would be immediately understood by French-speaking consumers as referring to a business specialised in silk.

In the context of household linen, the Board found that the sign directly conveys:

• the material used (silk), and
• the commercial activity (a “maison” in the sense of an establishment or company).

The Office recalled that EU trade mark law excludes registration of signs consisting exclusively of indications capable of describing the characteristics of the goods, in order to ensure that such terms remain freely available to all market participants.

‍

3. Lack of Ability to Indicate Commercial Origin

Beyond descriptiveness, the Board also confirmed that the sign lacked inherent distinctiveness.

A trade mark must enable consumers to identify the commercial origin of the goods.

In this case, “MAISON DE LA SOIE” would not be perceived as an indicator of origin, but rather as a purely informative or promotional expression: namely, that the undertaking offers silk-related products.

The Board noted that trade marks built on the formula “Maison de…” have frequently been assessed in a similar way, as consumers tend to understand such expressions as direct references to an activity rather than as distinctive brand identifiers.  

‍

4. Use Invoked, but Insufficient to Prove Acquired Distinctiveness

The applicant further argued that, even if the sign was descriptive at the outset, it had acquired distinctiveness through use.

However, the Board recalled that this is subject to a demanding evidentiary threshold: it must be shown that a significant proportion of the relevant public has come to recognise the sign as a trade mark.

The evidence submitted (press articles, social media accounts, turnover figures, Google Ads campaigns, website traffic data) was not sufficient to establish genuine recognition across the entire relevant linguistic area, particularly in Belgium and Luxembourg.

In particular, the Board highlighted the absence of consumer surveys or other direct proof demonstrating that the public perceives the sign as indicating commercial origin.  

‍

Conclusion

The MAISON DE LA SOIE decision provides a further illustration of the EUIPO’s strict approach towards trade marks combining the formula “Maison de…” with a material or sector reference.

Even where an undertaking has developed a real commercial presence, EU-wide protection requires that the sign go beyond the mere description of a business specialisation.

Finally, the case serves as a reminder that proving acquired distinctiveness through use remains particularly challenging, especially when such proof must extend across several Member States sharing the same language.