Wrigley's Doublemint Chewing Gum - 40 pk.

Product Information

Ingredients: Xylitol, Sorbitol, Chewing Gum Base, Mannitol, Glycerin, Maltitol Syrup, Artificial Flavors, Contains Less Than 2% Of Maltodextrin, Rice Starch, Aspartame, Lecithin (Soy), Coconut Oil, Acesulfame K, Sucrose Fatty Acid Esters, Green Tea Extract, Xanthan Gum, Sodium He introduced Juicy Fruit in 1893, with Spearmint gum following that same year. Wrigley designed a logo for Spearmint and pushed it so much, it eventually became successful for his company. Doublemint gum made its debut in 1914, featuring double flavor strength, double wrapping, and double the value of other gum brands. Freedent, Orbit, Extra, and Hubba Bubba came along much later. By an application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 April 2001, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (hereinafter ‘OHIM’) brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM ( DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-417 (hereinafter ‘the contested judgment’), in which the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1) (hereinafter ‘the contested decision’) dismissing the appeal lodged by Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (hereinafter ‘Wrigley’) against the refusal to register the word DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark for various classes of goods including in particular chewing gum. Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 provides that trade marks which ‘consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service’ are not to be registered. Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctive character - Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications - DOUBLEMINT)

After the show ended a few years later, Cynthia Daniel retired from acting to become a photographer. The one exception was a cameo on That 80s Show, which featured her sister at the time.Amazingly, chewing gum has its own health benefits as well. Some of the advantages you can get by chewing gum are reduced bad breath, getting rid of nausea and teeth protection. If you struggle to focus on a particular task, maybe it is time for you to start chewing gum as it improves brain functions and alertness, allowing you to make much more rational decisions. Is It Good To Have Chewing Gum Every Day? However, in the DOUBLEMINT case of 2003, the ECJ found that DOUBLEMINT was purely descriptive of chewing gum, stating that just because 'double' and 'mint' in combination gave rise to a variety of possible meanings, this did not automatically mean that the words were not descriptive. The German Government, also intervening in support of OHIM, submits that the word DOUBLEMINT is a purely descriptive indication that anybody must be able to use freely. The possible multiplicity of meanings inherent in the components of the description does not contradict that view. Those other meanings are all of a descriptive nature, including in German-speaking countries, as indeed the Bundespatentgericht and the Bundesgerichtshof have held in relation to the words ‘Marktfrisch’, ‘Doppel Caramel’, ‘Double Color’ and ‘Double Action’. This approach was confirmed in the 2004 case of POSTKANTOOR, where the ECJ stated that if, due to the unusual nature of the combination of words which form a trade mark, the overall impression is sufficiently far removed from the descriptive elements of the words concerned and the combination creates a different impression from the individual words, the mark is registrable. If the new word has established its own meaning, independent of the individual components which make up the mark, then again it is registrable. More recent guidance EUROHYPO Another perk of the gig was the travel. What could be better than shooting commercials around the world with your best friend?

At least, you may think, if the gum doesn't taste that good, it's probably not too bad for you then, right? Unfortunately, you'd be wrong on this count. In fact, Eat This, Not That! put Dentyne Ice Arctic Chill on its list of worst (meaning least healthy) gums on the market. It earned its spot on this list mostly because of its list of artificial and dubious-sounding ingredients. However, something that makes this gum better than many other options out there is the fact that the flavor lasts for so long. If you're the kind of person who's always chewing, this is going to be a great option for you. After all, who wants to throw their gum out after only 15 minutes of chewing? Depending on the chewing gum you eat, it is actually relatively safe to have chewing gum every day as it helps to exercise your jaw muscles. Remember to opt for the ones without added sugar to prevent the risk of tooth decay. 10 Best Chewing Gum in Malaysia 2023 1. Juicy Fruit Flavor Juicy Chewing Gum Image credit: ShopeeNeed a distraction or fun activity?: Silverhill's 'Where's the Mayor?' fun, educational way to pass time". Gulf Coast Media . Retrieved 2023-03-22.

There’s not much information on what the Macrkell Twins did later in life. After they left the gig as the Doublemint Twins, they faded into obscurity. Doublemint Twins to Modeling In Playboy This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. In 2004, the European Union Court of Justice ultimately denied Wrigley's request for trademark status on the name "Doublemint"; the Court found that the mark DOUBLEMINT was descriptive of the product and in violation of trademark law. [9] Known ingredients [ edit ]In this 2008 case, the ECJ clarified that distinctiveness and descriptiveness are separate considerations requiring separate assessment in terms of whether a Community Trade Mark (CTM) should be registered. By an application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 1 September 1999, Wrigley brought an action for annulment of the contested decision. The Court of First Instance upheld that action. APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM ( DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, Paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Community. Under Article 4 of Regulation No 40/94, a Community trade mark may consist of any signs capable of being represented graphically, provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.