Bud none the wiser

The IPKat is grateful to Terho Nevasalo for tipping him off about the latest decision in the BUDWEISER saga. This decision appears to be a stalemate. This time, the venue of the argument was Finland, where Anheuser-Busch holds the BUDWEISER trade mark. Information is still a bit hazy, but from what the Kat can make out, the Finnish Supreme Court has recognised that the Czech company has a defence based on use of its trade name, as long as it uses the term BUDWEISER BUDVAR in accordance with honest practices. However, this defence does not cover the use of the term BUD.

If the IPKat is right about the reasoning of this case, this approach could have major implications for cross-border trade mark disputes. The ECJ has already recognised in Gerolsteiner that the fact that two companies have come up with confusingly similar names doesn’t amount to dishonesty. The Finnish Supreme Court’s approach appears to suggest that this reading of the proviso to the defences can be put together with a defence based on use of a defendant’s own company name, and not just on use of one’s own personal name.

More information on the decision is available here.

Universities and IP

The Lambert Working Group on Intellectual Property wants to hear from those who have use the Lambert Toolkit ahead of February 2006, when the first-year review of the Lambert Toolkit will take place. The Toolkit is a tool to facilitate negotiations between universities and companies that wish to collaborate together and gives guidance on ownership and exploitation of any intellectual property rights generated by the project and how this inter-relates to issues such as the financial contribution from the business, and the publication rights for the university.

To submit your feedback, follow the link at the bottom of this page on the Patent Office website.
BEER AND UNIVERSITIES BEER AND UNIVERSITIES Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, January 06, 2006 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.