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).
Budweiser dispute goes back in time Budweiser dispute goes back in time Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Rating: 5


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

  2. Wait, let me Haiku-ise that:

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

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


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

Powered by Blogger.