Marks & Clerk cheered by Budweiser ruling

SPECIALIST intellectual property law firm Marks & Clerk has helped to resolve a long-running dispute over the rights of competing brewers to use the brand name ‘Budweiser’ in the UK.

In a case brought before The Court of Appeal, judges ruled against Anheuser-Busch’s – maker of US Budweiser beer – latest attempt to deprive Czech rival Budějovický Budvar of its right to the ‘Budweiser’ name in the UK.
 
The courts had given both companies permission to simultaneously register the ‘Budweiser’ trade mark in 2000, given their long-standing history of honest co-existence in the UK market.

However, in 2005, Anheuser-Busch started legal action to invalidate Budvar’s ‘Budweiser’ claim on the grounds that its application to register the mark in the UK (1976) predated Budvar’s application (1989).
 
The Court of Appeal sought clarification from the European Court of Justice (CJEU), which in September last year ruled in Budvar’s favour.

The court’s new ruling, handed down on Tuesday, now all but guarantees Budvar’s right to maintain its ‘Budweiser’ trade mark registration in the UK.
 
Mark Blair, partner at Birmingham-based Marks & Clerk Solicitors, who acted for the Czech brewers Budějovický Budvar, said after the hearing: “We are delighted with this decision, confirming what in our opinion is obvious following the favourable ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in September last year – that as a result of the decades-long honest use of the mark ‘Budweiser’ by both Budvar and Anheuser-Busch in the UK, both parties should be entitled to a trade mark registration.

“Today’s judgment allows the trade mark register to reflect the reality of the situation in the market place – that both brands co-exist and have done so for many years.

“Today’s judgment is confirmation of Budvar’s right to the ‘Budweiser’ name in the UK. It is a further example of how trade mark law must be interpreted within its commercial context; that even in cases of so-called “double identity” – where the same mark is used in respect of the same goods – it is still necessary to demonstrate an adverse effect on the ability of the trade mark to function as an indication of origin.”