Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2008] EWHC 263 (Ch) (19 February 2008)

Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2008] EWHC 263 (Ch) (19 February 2008)

Statutory acquiescence under section 48 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 begins from the date of registration of the later mark, not the date of application. AB's application for invalidity was brought in time. There was no estoppel by acquiescence or abuse of process. However, invalidity regarding 'malt beverages' was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 263 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/registered Proprietor: Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik; Respondent/applicant: Anheuser-Busch Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Trademark Appeal / Appeal From Hearing Officer's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part, allowed in part
Legal Topics
Trademark Registration, Invalidity Proceedings, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Abuse of Process
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Trademark Registration Invalidity Proceedings Acquiescence Estoppel Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik

Appellant/registered Proprietor

Anheuser-Busch Inc

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Trademark Appeal / Appeal From Hearing Officer's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AB's application for invalidity of BB's 'Budweiser' mark was barred by statutory acquiescence under section 48 of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether common law acquiescence or estoppel prevented AB's application
  3. 3 Whether AB's application constituted an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Statutory acquiescence under section 48 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 begins from the date of registration of the later mark, not the date of application. AB's application for invalidity was brought in time. There was no estoppel by acquiescence or abuse of process. However, invalidity regarding 'malt beverages' was not established due to lack of evidence of similarity and confusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part, allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration of invalidity of BB's 'Budweiser' mark in respect of 'beer, ale and porter' upheld
  • Declaration of invalidity in respect of 'malt beverages' set aside