Final blow for AB InBev’s BUDWEISER trademark therefore block AB InBev’s sales grew by 5.1% in China and Some experts have suggested application. shot up 15.9% in Brazil; and the that BUDWEISER was never The ECJ stated: “None of the company’s presence in emerging appropriate for a European three pleas in law raised by AB markets is still growing. market where earlier rights InBev in support of its appeal Part of this success is due to existed and where, in some can be accepted and... the appeal the leveraging of market-specific regions, the name was open to must therefore be dismissed in brands in these regions – in opposition based on claims of its entirety.” Brazil, AB InBev has its popular descriptiveness or the AB InBev’s strategy going Antarctica and Brahma brands. problematic geographical forward is unclear. While the In certain jurisdictions, the indication issue. Anheuser-Busch InBev has court has apparently thwarted decision to diversify outside the However, Joseph Dreitler, a failed in its 14-year effort to its attempt to register the CTM, flagship mark can therefore be a partner at Bricker & Eckler who register its famous BUDWEISER Budweiser is still the company’s winning strategy. As an example, served as an in-house trademark mark as a Community flagship brand, so it would be this tactic has been particularly lawyer at Anheuser-Busch in the trademark (CTM) in the surprising if the beer company successful for brand owners in 1990s, disputes that this is the European Union. The Court of gave up the fight. As AB InBev China: Hermes recently revealed case: “Without talking out of Justice of the European Union considers its options, it is a bespoke brand for the Chinese school, AB InBev has been aware (ECJ) ruled on July 29 that experiencing mixed fortunes in market, following on from of the Czech issue since 1908. A Budejovický Budvar’s earlier global sales. In western Europe, similar announcements by lot of things happened in the rights in Germany and Austria AB InBev’s first-quarter sales Burberry and Levi’s. interim, including prohibition in were sufficient to show genuine volumes for 2010 were down This illustrates the need to the United States for a long use of the mark in the 1.2%, while in Russia they choose a brand that is period of time, which made Community and could plummeted by 14.4%. However, appropriate for the market. certain things impossible.”

For more detailed reports on all items featured in the news section, visit www.WorldTrademarkReview.com