Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our privacy policy.

Technical settings

Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Procter & Gamble v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Baby Dry case)

[2001] Case C-383/99 P

Case summary last updated at 31/01/2020 15:21 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Procter & Gamble v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Baby Dry case)

Company sought to register trade mark ‘Baby Dry’ in relation to nappies. Held:
 
·       “Baby dry” was a lexical invention
·       Thus as a whole, mark was not descriptive
Ø  Juxtaposition of words was unfamiliar in English language
Ø  Combination of words was not used to describe either nappies or their characteristics
·       This was case even though individual words themselves were descriptive.

Procter & Gamble v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Baby Dry case) crops up in following areas of law