Procter and Gamble Co. v. Johnson and Johnson, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 1185 (1979) p.131

SUBJECT

adoption and use of trademark

FACTS

PG kept a reserve of trademarks of what they called minor goods. They kept these marks barely active (just enough to keep trademark). PG had one of these brands but they never really used it. JJ noticed that PG had the trademark but decided to use it anyway. JJ looked to see if PG was actually using the product in the ordinary course of trade. It was not so JJ decided to use it. They went forward with the registration and then PG sued.

ISSUE

Whether there is a valid trademark.
Whether there is confusion in the eyes of the public.

RATIONAL

PG never really used D's mark. PG has never used the brands in any meaningful way. Their use is nominal and does not represent a bona fide attempt to establish a trade in any meaningful way.

NOTES

Registration makes trademark presumed valid so the party contesting it has the burden of proof. Here JJ had to prove that the registration should have never taken place in the first place because the trademark was never used in commerce. JJ argued that there was abandonment.

Trademark was cancellable because should not have been registered in the first place.

Created on: Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 18:17:24 (PST)