Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:10:38.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade Mark Use Explained: Insights from the General Court in “Bud”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stavroula Karapapa
Stavroula Karapapa*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The General Court has dismissed the actions brought Budějovický Budvar against the registration of the Community trade mark “Bud” for beer that was sought for by Anheuser-Busch. The main reason is the insignificant use in France and Austria of the appellation of origin “Bud”.

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 111 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of marks of 15 June 1957 (as revised and amended).

2 Registration number 361566.

3 The legal basis here was Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)).

4 Treaty on the protection of indications of source, appellations of origin and other designations referring to the source of agricultural and industrial products, concluded on 11 June 1976 between the Republic of Austria and the Czechoslovak Socialist Rebublic; also see the Bilateral agreement on the application of that Treaty concluded on 7 June 1979.

5 Anheuser-Busch v Budějovický Budvar, Case C-96/09, ECR I- 02131.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid, paragraphs 90–98.

8 This went against to the findings of the Board of Appeal in the contested decisions. Ibid, paragraphs 142–146.

9 Anheuser-Busch v Budějovický Budvar, Case C-96/09, paragraphs 156 to 159.

10 Budějovický Budvar, národni podnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06) Unreported January 22, 2013 (GC), para 53.

11 That is 1 April 1996.

12 Budějovický Budvar, národni podnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06) Unreported January 22, 2013 (GC), para 55.

13 Cases T225/06 RENV, T255/06 RENV and T257/06 RENV.

14 Budějovický Budvar, národni podnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06) Unreported January 22, 2013 (GC), para 56.

15 Ibid, paragraph 57.

16 Ibid, paragraphs 58–63.

17 Ibid, paragraphs 64 and 66.

18 Anheuser-Busch v Budějovický Budvar, Case C-96/09, ECR I-02131, paragraph 157.

19 There has been a number of cases addressing economic issues in this context, including Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (“General Optica”), Joined Cases T-318/06 to T-321/06, paragraphs 36-37.