Is an end in sight to the Budweiser dispute?

An unexpected end could be on the way to the Budweiser dispute. It is reported by Forbes that Anheuser-Busch is in talks with the Czech Government to purchase the Czech brewer Budweiser Budvar. However, as in all matters concerning the dispute between the two companies, the picture is far from clear.

Czech Business Weekly reports that the privitisation of Budweiser Budvar, which is currently state-owned, is going slowly because the Czech Government is afraid of jeopardising the brewer’s ‘legal continuity’, and therefore putting its trade marks at risk. The Budvar brand is thought to be worth 20 and 30 billion Czech crowns. According to Ivan Fuksa, deputy minister of finance:

“The Ministry of Agriculture is at present considering the pros and possible cons of the transformation. It will probably use analyses made by a prestigious consultant to ensure certainty and full continuity of the activity and rights (including those connected with intellectual property) during the intended change of Budvar”.

The IPKat can see how a buy-out would, in principle, solve the trade mark disputes. However, if the Budvar brand really has its own value (as opposed to just being purchased to get rid of a thorn in Anheuser-Busch’s side), then it would have to co-exist on the market with US Budweiser. But aren’t the two companies claiming that the co-existence of the two on the market causes confusion?

Is an end in sight to the Budweiser dispute? Is an end in sight to the Budweiser dispute? Reviewed by Unknown on Monday, September 17, 2007 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.