The Guardian reports that Scottish and Newcastle plc, the brewers of NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE, are considering switching production from Newcastle to Gateshead, a nearby North-Eastern town. The article reports that the Gateshead-based Federation Brewery has been producing trial runs of “broon” (as the ale is known).
The IPKat is detects a storm brewing. NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE is a protected geographical indication that must, according to its specification, be brewed in The City of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Tyne and Wear. Gateshead of course is not within Newcastle. Presumably this means that the brewer of broon won’t be able to use the GI that it lovingly cultivated. Moreover, Scottish and Newcastle plc is the proprietor of various NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE trade marks. If they can’t use that name though because it’s a GI, will the trade mark eventually become revocable on non-use grounds. Moreover, will the use of a trade mark containing the word “Newcastle” for a beverage that originates in Gateshead be deceptive.
Find out what’s really inside NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE here and here
Like your beer really cold? Click here and here
Like your beer warm? Click here
The IPKat is detects a storm brewing. NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE is a protected geographical indication that must, according to its specification, be brewed in The City of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Tyne and Wear. Gateshead of course is not within Newcastle. Presumably this means that the brewer of broon won’t be able to use the GI that it lovingly cultivated. Moreover, Scottish and Newcastle plc is the proprietor of various NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE trade marks. If they can’t use that name though because it’s a GI, will the trade mark eventually become revocable on non-use grounds. Moreover, will the use of a trade mark containing the word “Newcastle” for a beverage that originates in Gateshead be deceptive.
Find out what’s really inside NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE here and here
Like your beer really cold? Click here and here
Like your beer warm? Click here
AN AILING GI?
![AN AILING GI?]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html