Procter and Gamble v OHIM, 2004, ECR 1-5173
Citation: Procter and Gamble v OHIM, 2004, ECR 1-5173
Rule of thumb: Is there an example of a trade mark application which was borderline on whether it was too general to apply? Yes, Pampers ‘Baby Dry’ was a ‘grey area’ application which raised significant debate.
Judgment:
Where the name of the trade mark being registered is too general then it will be refused. The facts of this case were that Pampers were looking to register a trade mark for the words ‘baby dry’. The Court held that this was too general and not specific enough to what they were actually doing in order to be registrable as a trade mark and this application was refused, ‘... distinctive character must first be assessed by reference to the products or services in respect of which registration has been applied for, and, second, by reference to the perception of the relevant public, which consists of average consumers of the products or services in question, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect... Baby Dry ... only sings that may serve in normal usage from a customer’s point of view to designate... goods or services would be excluded’, para 33
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.