![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilPx93d_sK_s9JNkAW_t278XC5CSvy0J6WF8aCmetlh_aj2djc9yYOCP2IxCN5JkDlMmMFPrQ0swON40c7o_oqTL885wN1WH-t5uJ4NNy2Fdz4BOYiLGDNiDzkRpUTV5WqL68q/s320/budweiser_back_in_time.jpg)
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](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilPx93d_sK_s9JNkAW_t278XC5CSvy0J6WF8aCmetlh_aj2djc9yYOCP2IxCN5JkDlMmMFPrQ0swON40c7o_oqTL885wN1WH-t5uJ4NNy2Fdz4BOYiLGDNiDzkRpUTV5WqL68q/s72-c/budweiser_back_in_time.jpg)
Anheuser-Busch v.
ReplyDeleteBudejovicky Budvar, oh
what a bore. Yawn. Cheers.
Both are called Bud, but neither is weiser
ReplyDeleteWait, let me Haiku-ise that:
ReplyDelete"Bud and Bud went to court, but the whole experience left them none the weiser"
Bud v Bud Again!
ReplyDeleteWho is confused now? Not me,
But Justice Norris.