For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Tuesday, 19 February 2008

Budweiser dispute goes back in time

Readers of this weblog may get a sense of deja-brew when they see the case name Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc. Well, there has been a fresh outbreak of litigation between those two noble beneficiaries of the legal profession, this time fought out in the Chancery Division of the High Court for England and Wales. You can find it as case [2008] EWHC 263 (Ch) on BAILII, which faithfully reproduces the words of (non-IP-specialist judge) Mr Justice Norris.

The IPKat won't even trouble to explain this one, which stems from an application filed in June 1989 and which harks back to the late, unlamented pre-directive legislation in the United Kingdom and involves a conflict for two marks, registered on the same day for largely the same goods, where one of those marks later turned out to be an earlier mark than the other.

A prize -- a pristine copy of the most recent edition (the 8th) of Butterworths' Intellectual Property Law Handbook -- goes to the best summary of this decision in NOT MORE THAN 150 WORDS. Please send your entry here. A further copy is offered as a prize for the best haiku on the Budweiser dispute, so get writing! (Best entries will be published).

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anheuser-Busch v.
Budejovicky Budvar, oh
what a bore. Yawn. Cheers.

FOARP said...

Both are called Bud, but neither is weiser

FOARP said...

Wait, let me Haiku-ise that:

"Bud and Bud went to court, but the whole experience left them none the weiser"

Anonymous said...

Bud v Bud Again!
Who is confused now? Not me,
But Justice Norris.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':