BUDWEISER Trade Marks; Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc.

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date2000
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
7 cases
  • Match Group, LLC v Muzmatch Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • April 27, 2023
    ...the mark, in the case of BB on the ground of honest concurrent use within section 12(2) of the 1938 Act: see BUDWEISER Trade Marks [2000] RPC 906. Both marks were entered on the register on the same day, 19 May 84 In 2005 AB applied for a declaration of invalidity of BB's registration pursu......
  • Industrial Cleaning Equipment (Southampton) Ltd v Intelligent Cleaning Equipment Holdings Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • December 6, 2023
    ...in the case of BB on the ground of honest concurrent use within section 12(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1938: see BUDWEISER Trade Marks [2000] RPC 906. Both marks were entered on the register on the same day, 19 May 41 On 18 May 2005 AB applied for a declaration of invalidity of BB's registrat......
  • Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Budejovicky Budvar N.P., B & S Foods Aktiebolag and Birra Mex Aktiebolag
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • February 19, 2008
    ...point). The battleground therefore remained the competing provisions of section 11 and section 12(2) of the 1938 Act. The Court held ( [2000] RPC 906 at 916) that the outcome of the passing off action was not determinative of the trademark applications then before it (passing off being a ma......
  • Decision Nº O/177/11 from Intellectual Property Office - (Trade market), 8 June 2011
    • United Kingdom
    • Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)
    • June 8, 2011
    ...the market place. The tribunal must always consider the public interest and whether it is just to register a trade mark (per Budweiser [2000] R.P.C. 906).” 39) In terms of the claim to lack of confusion, this is a clear example of when this is not particularly relevant. As Mr Farrand conced......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT