Lindex wins in the Court of Appeal – another important victory for women’s needs

The Court of Appeal finds that Essity has not demonstrated that Lindex’s communication about light urine leakage relates to illness or disability. Instead, the marketing concerns a hygiene product for women in general. The judgment thus confirms Lindex’s assessment and provides important clarification for continued innovation and the ability to communicate openly about women’s needs and everyday challenges.

'The Court of Appeal’s ruling sends a clear and important message for continued innovation and the ability to normalise bodily functions such as menstruation and light urine leakage. The ruling confirms our view of how these issues can be described and communicated and is an important endorsement of our work to drive meaningful change for women. We will continue to break taboos and develop products based on women’s real needs throughout the different stages of life,' says Susanne Ehnbåge, CEO of Lindex. 

Lindex’s period panties are primarily developed for menstruation, but can also be used for other bodily fluids, including light urine leakage. The case has concerned whether this use means that the panties should be regarded as medical devices, as well as how Lindex may communicate about the products’ features and women’s needs.

Like the District Court, the Court of Appeal also ordered Essity to reimburse Lindex for all of the company’s legal costs. 
 

Background information 
Essity brought legal proceedings against Lindex in 2024, alleging unfair marketing of Female Engineering’s period panties. The case has mainly concerned certain marketing messages, how Lindex has communicated that the period panties can be used for light urine leakage, and whether this means that the products should be regarded as medical devices and be subject to CE marking requirements. 

On 21 May 2025, the District Court dismissed most of Essity’s claims. The court prohibited Lindex from using certain specific claims about other incontinence products but dismissed Essity’s remaining claims. Essity was also ordered to reimburse Lindex’s legal costs of SEK 4,692,152 plus interest. 

The District Court’s judgment noted that it is not self-evident that all forms of involuntary urine leakage should be regarded as illness or disability from a medical perspective. The court also found that the marketing concerned milder symptoms and that the panties is primarily intended as menstrual protection.