Procter and Gamble Co v OHIM

Standard

This is an EU case

Office for harmoniation of the internal market – OHIM

the baby dry case. 2001.

the OHIM refused the registration of the trademark ”baby dry” since it was too vague. it was descriptive and had no profound meaning

the trademark must be a phrase not in common usage. this expression is in ordinary parlance.

a trademark need synctactical change

 

names can indicate, the kind , quality, geogrpahical origin etc…. of the product.

this arose from a council regulation 40.94 from 1994.

juxtaposing words is not always enough to make a trademark

 

 

 

Advertisements

About Calers

Born Belfast 1971. I read history at Edinburgh. I did a Master's at UCL. I have semi-libertarian right wing opinions. I am married with a daughter and a son. I am allergic to cats. I am the falling hope of the not so stern and somewhat bending Tories. I am a legal beagle rather than and eagle. Big up the Commonwealth of Nations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s