Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc

Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc

There was no statutory acquiescence as the five-year period under section 48 runs from the date of registration, not application, and AB's application was timely. There was no common law estoppel or acquiescence as the facts did not support a representation or detrimental reliance. The application was not an abuse of process as the right to seek invalidity under the 1994 Act could not have been raised in earlier proceedings under the 1938 Act. However, the declaration of invalidity could not extend to 'malt beverages' as AB's earlier mark did not cover those goods and no evidence of similarity or confusion was provided.

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 / High Court Appeal From Hearing Officer's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Trademark Registration, Invalidity of Registration, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Abuse of Process
Intellectual Property Law Trademark Registration Invalidity of Registration Acquiescence Estoppel Abuse of Process

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik

Appellant/registered Proprietor

Anheuser-Busch Inc

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Trademark Appeal / High Court Appeal From Hearing Officer's Decision

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

There was no statutory acquiescence as the five-year period under section 48 runs from the date of registration, not application, and AB's application was timely. There was no common law estoppel or acquiescence as the facts did not support a representation or detrimental reliance. The application was not an abuse of process as the right to seek invalidity under the 1994 Act could not have been raised in earlier proceedings under the 1938 Act. However, the declaration of invalidity could not extend to 'malt beverages' as AB's earlier mark did not cover those goods and no evidence of similarity or confusion was provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

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