This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Procter & Gamble v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Baby Dry case) [2001] Case C-383/99 P

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:13

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

Table Of Contents

  • 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

    • Juxtaposition of words was unfamiliar in English language

    • Combination of words was not used to describe either nappies or their characteristics

  • This was case even though individual words themselves were descriptive.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

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

Intellectual Property Law Notes
1,014 total pages
1033 purchased

IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...

Intellectual Property Law Notes
446 total pages
22 purchased

My notes cover all the main cases in intellectual property law. They a...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Intellectual Property Law Notes
446 total pages
22 purchased

My notes cover all the main cases in intellectual property law. They a...