Procter & Gamble Co. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
485 F. Supp. 1185 (1980)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) (plaintiff) owned the trademark “Sure” for an underarm antiperspirant and a tampon. P&G also owned the trademark “Assure” for a mouthwash and a shampoo. Since 1964, P&G had carried the “Sure” mark for tampons in its minor-brands program. From 1964 through 1968, P&G was involved in litigation over the use of the “Sure” mark for tampons, and the mark was ultimately registered to P&G in 1968. P&G had maintained the “Assure” mark for mouthwash and shampoo in the minor-brands program since 1970. P&G used the minor-brands program to establish and maintain ownership rights over trademarks that P&G had not assigned to commercially marketed products. In an effort to avoid claims that the marks had been abandoned, P&G shipped small quantities of minor-brands-program products under their branded labels. P&G’s total revenues from sales of “Sure” tampons were $874.70, and the “Assure” mark brought in revenues of $491.30 for shampoo and $161.50 for mouthwash. During the relevant time, P&G introduced new tampon, shampoo, and mouthwash products but not under the “Sure” or “Assure” marks. P&G sued Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (J&J) (defendant) for trademark infringement based on J&J’s use of the marks “Assure!” on a tampon and “Sure & Natural” on an external, menstrual-protection shield. Insofar as P&G’s claims related to the minor-brands program, J&J argued that P&G had not established the right to trademark protection because P&G had not used the marks in commerce. The court held a bench trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leval, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

