The parties disputed the use of the name Budweiser for the beers which each sold.
Held: Neither party was entitled to an injunction. neither AB nor BB was disentitled to use the name Budweiser since in 1979 there was a dual reputation and neither had achieved the reputation improperly and neither was making a misrepresentation. The court recognised that some degree of confusion might result, but this was true in the case of marks used in pursuance of registration under section 12(2) of the 1938 Act.
Judges:
Whitford J, Oliver LJ
Citations:
[1984] FSR 413
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch CA 7-Feb-2000
The registration of two trade marks (‘Budweiser’) with the identical names was against the Act since it would appear to encourage the very confusion the Act sought to avoid. Nevertheless, where there was genuine honest concurrent use, that use might . .
Cited – Harrods Limited v Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd and Harrods (South America) Ltd ChD 15-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Leading Case
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.258731
