Concurrent Trademark Registration in the UK

[jberryhill]

I know. I've been warned. But...

Garry, look at this UK trademark registration:

------------
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/numbe...demark=1389680

UK Reg. TM No. 1389680
"BUDWEISER"

Class 32:
Beer, ale and porter; malt beverages; all included in Class 32; but not including any such goods for supply to, or sale in, the United States of America's Embassy and PX stores in the United Kingdom.

Proprietor: Budejovicky Budvar, Narodni Podnik
370 01 Ceske Budejovice,Czech Republic

Honest Concurrent Use:
Proceeding by reason of special circumstances. Section 12(2).
---------------

Now look at this UK trademark registration:

--------------
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/numbe...demark=1125449

UK Reg. TM No. 1125449
"BUDWEISER"

Class 32:
"Beer, ale and porter".

Proprietor: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated
721 Pestalozzi Street,Saint Louis,Missouri,United States of America
----------------

Same UK Registered Mark.
Same Goods.
Different Owners.

From the helpful information at www.budweiser.cz :

"The United Kingdom is also the first country where according to a decision passed by the High Court of Justice both companies have the right to register and use the Budweiser trademark. The first verdict in AB's case against Budweiser Budvar N. C. that was connected with the use of denomination on the market was passed by the court in 1984. The second, with the same result as the first, which allows the brands of both breweries to be registered, after a further case brought by the Americans was passed in February, 2000."

The cite for the 1984 case permitting concurrent UK registration of "BUDWEISER" for beer ale and porter is:

Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik (t/a Budweiser Budvar Brewery) [1984] FSR 413.

The House of Lords itself refused to hear an appeal by Anheuser Busch in the most recent case of Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik, as noted in the minutes of the House of Lords:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...2/ldminute.htm

"Anheuser-Busch Inc (Petitioners) v. Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused"

Now, Garry, I remind you of this:

http://www.dnforum.com/f26/uspto-united-states-pretend-trademarks-office-thread-42578.html

EVERYBODY expects when seeing a particular product or service, registered in their own country, that it comes from one basic supplier - that it is unique.

Except in America - where they changed the law to pervert this root basic concept.

[...]

It is a fact: United States Registered Trademark System is a sham. You cannot trust that any product or service, with US registered trademark, to say it comes from a specific supplier. US trademarks are a joke.

So, please tell me. In your guaranteed-to-be-non-confusing domain registration system, who gets:

budweiser.beer.uk.reg

Hmm?

If I am in the UK, and I pick up a bottle of beer with the registered trademark "BUDWEISER" on the label, where did that beer come from?

At least in the US, concurrent registrations have geographical disclaimers built in, to divide concurrent registrations regionally. But, in the world according to Garry Anderson, the UK registration system is an even greater corrupt sham, because they permitted registration of "BUDWEISER" to two entirely different (and bitterly combative) companies in the entire United Kingdom.

And if that is not bad enough, the High Court and the House of Lords both agreed to this proposition.

"Except in America" my ***.

[Garry Anderson]

Sorry John, I am way ahead of you.

My search for the truth has already took me down this route.

I have been in touch with UK Patent Office about the subject.

Symbols of openness and honesty they are not - I was forced to make official complaint.

I will get back to you when they respond.

[jberryhill]

"I will get back to you when they respond."

I won't hold my breath.

For anyone interested in seeing what can happen during over a century of conflict over a single trademark, I highly recommend reading the "trademark dispute" section at the budweiser.cz website.

In a nutshell, beer from the town brewery of Budweis in the Czech republic has been brewed since 1265, and had been imported to the US since before the founding of Anheiser-Busch. In the late 1800's Adolf Busch admitted he named Budweiser after the technique used by the Budweis brewers, who had previously been calling their beer Budweiser. They reached a settlement agreement in 1911, but the agreement was renegotiated just prior to the Nazi takeover in 1939, and subsequent political circumstances left the Czechs at a profound disadvantage, leaving Anheiser-Busch free to disregard even the unfavorable 1939 settlement. Since the "velvet revolution" of Vaclav Havel, the original Budweiser has been swinging back in trademark actions fought on battlegrounds all over the world.

[jberryhill]

Garry,

What good will come of a complaint to the UK Patent Office?

Are you saying that they should not follow the UK Trade Marks Act of 1994:

------
7. - (1) This section applies where on an application for the registration of a trade mark it appears to the registrar-

(a) that there is an earlier trade mark in relation to which the conditions set out in section 5(1), (2) or (3) obtain, or

(b) that there is an earlier right in relation to which the condition set out in section 5(4) is satisfied, but the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the registrar that there has been honest concurrent use of the trade mark for which registration is sought.

(2) In that case the registrar shall not refuse the application by reason of the earlier trade mark or other earlier right unless objection on that ground is raised in opposition proceedings by the proprietor of that earlier trade mark or other earlier right.

(3) For the purposes of this section “honest concurrent use” means such use in the United Kingdom, by the applicant or with his consent, as would formerly have amounted to honest
concurrent use for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1938.
------------

If you look at the Czech "BUDWEISER" registration, you will see that it specifically references Section 12(2) of the 1938 Act.

Also, Garry, the High Court found in favor of concurrent registration, and the House of Lords refused appeal.

Are you suggesting that the Patent Office should respond to your complaint in a manner which is contrary to the Act?

No, Garry, the UK Patent Office is as corrupt and as much of a sham as you found the US PTO to be.

In fact, think about it, Garry.... they had concurrent registration in the 1938 act, and the other Budweiser is in the Czech Republic. Neville Chamberlain himself had to be thinking about this when he gave Hitler the green light to invade the Sudetenland. Cleverly disguising his diplomacy as an attempt to bring "Peace In Our Time", Chamberlain was most probably attempting to make it impossible to work out a coherent domain name registration system. As you know, MI-5 was already working on reverse engineering the German Enigma code generator, and that work led directly to the development of computer systems and internet communication as we know it.

Garry, I think you've only hit the tip of the iceberg here.

I mean, the only other alternative is that you are fundamentally mistaken about the function of trademark registration which forms the entire premise of your proposed domain registration scheme.

[Garry Anderson]

JB > What good will come of a complaint to the UK Patent Office?

This is entirely dependant upon what they say.

I always try to have at least two paths ready ;-)

Their official complaint procedure seems to take an unreasonable length of time - time to give them a kick up the posterior I think.