Budweiser Protects Its Throne From the Queen of Beer

‎It's a pleasure to collaborate with lawyers from other countries. On this occasion we have an entry from the hand of Roman Vayner of Vayner Legal, and intellectual property law firm in Washington, D.C. offering a range of options to develop, protect, and enforce your company's brands, slogans, and logos.

“Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser brands itself as the king of beer and its recent trademark defense shows it’s not willing to share the throne.  A California craft beer company named She Beverage Co. recently filed a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for THE QUEEN OF BEER for “beer,” and Anheuser-Busch quickly moved to oppose it.

Anheuser-Busch argued in its opposition that She Beverage Co.’s trademark would cause consumer confusion with several of its KING OF BEERS word and design marks, the oldest of which was registered in 1968 for “beer.”

Anheuser-Busch also argued that THE QUEEN OF BEER would dilute the distinctive nature of Budweiser’s famous trademarks.  Famous marks are afforded heightened protection from similar marks because of the strong connection in the mind of the public between the source of the product and the mark.  And there is little doubt that Budweiser’s marks qualify as famous considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that it spends annually on advertising, and its place as one of the world’s most valuable brands.     

This would also not be the first time that the fame of the Budweiser brand has worked in its favor to oppose plays on its well-known slogan.  There are trademark applications for THE QUEEN OF BEERS, QUEEN OF BEERS, and QUEEN OF BEER in the PTO database, all of which have since been abandoned after Office Actions or oppositions from Budweiser. 

In its current opposition,  Anheuser-Busch pointed to its previous opposition against THE QUEEN OF BEERS, where the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled in Budweiser’s favor.  In that case, the TTAB ruled that consumers would mistakenly believe that THE QUEEN OF BEERS was a production extension of Budweiser’s that was targeted towards women.  That fact, combined with the fame of the Budweiser marks, warranted summary judgment in favor of Anheuser-Busch.

The owners of She Beverage Co. readily admit that their beer is targeted towards women, saying “[O]ur message is for women. We feel all women are queens. That’s really where it originated from, and so we named it the queen of beer.”  But even She Beer Co.’s beers are targeted towards women; it is not likely to help their defense.  Budweiser does not limit its beer to a particular target market, so its goods are presumed to travel in all “normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all classes of purchasers.”   Presumably Anheuser-Busch's class of purchasers includes all potential beer drinkers, including women.  So it appears that Anheuser-Busch and She  Beverage Co. essentially target the same consumers with identical goods. In this cases, famous marks are given more legal protection than an unknown mark. 

Finally, in its opposition, Anheuser-Busch also took aim at the underlying registrability of THE QUEEN OF BEER mark, arguing that the mark was not in use “in commerce” as required by federal trademark law, because the sales and use of the mark have so far been limited to California.  Indeed, the Lanham Act requires that a mark be “use[d] in commerce” in order to be registrable, which it defines as “all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.”  The PTO, following Supreme Court precedent, has interpreted “commerce” as “interstate commerce” (i.e. commerce among the states.)  Budweiser’s argument thus presents another way to invalidate THE QUEEN OF BEER mark, even if the TTAB finds that consumers can distinguish the new “queen” beer from Budweiser’s brands.      

She  Beverage Co. plans to fight the trademark opposition, but based on the famous nature of the Budweiser marks, the identical goods, and similar consumers, success may be a tall order.”

Author: Roman Vayner

If you're a professional lawyer and you want to participate and publish an article related to the Industrial Property, please send an email to the following address: carolina.s.margareto@gmail.com

Thanks for share!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Es un placer colaborar con los abogados de otros países. En esta ocasión contamos con una entrada de la mano de Roman Vayner del despacho Vayner abogados de Washington DC que ofrece una gama de opciones para poder desarrollar, proteger sus marcas, sus slogans y logos de su empresa.

“El Rey de la cerveza ha demostrado con su reciente defensa de su marca Budweiser que no está dispuesto a compartir el trono. Una compañía de California de cerveza artesanal llamada She Beverage Co. recientemente presentó en la Oficina de Marcas  de Estados Unidos la solicitud de la marca “THE QUEEN OF BEER” (traducido “Reina de la cerveza”) para "cerveza". Budweiser se movió rápidamente para oponerse a esta nueva solicitud.

Budweiser argumentó en su oposición en que “THE QUEEN OF BEER” la marca solicitada de She Beverage Co. podría causar confusión entre los consumidores con “KING OF BEER” la marca y el diseño  más antiguo para “cerveza” registrado por la firma desde 1968.

Budweiser también argumentó que la marca que pretendía acceder al registro diluiría el carácter distintivo de su famosa marca Budweiser. Las Marcas renombradas están provistas de una protección más amplia frente a las marcas similares por el fuerte nexo de unión que proyectan entre la mente del publico, el origen del producto y la marca. No hay duda que las marcas de Budweiser son muy conocidas teniendo en cuenta los cientos de millones de dólares que se gasta cada año en publicidad, siendo calificada como una de las marcas más valiosas del mundo.

Esta no sería tampoco la primera ocasión que el carácter renombrado de la marca Budweiser ha resultado ser una ventaja para oponerse al uso de su slogan. Hay solicitudes de marcas para “THE QUEEN OF BEERS”, “QUEEN OF BEERS” y “QUEEN OF BEER” en la base de datos de la Oficina de marcas de USA,  las cuales ya han sido abandonadas después que Budweiser ejercitara sus oposiciones correspondientes en defensa de su marca.

En su actual oposición, Budweiser hizo referencia al argumento utilizado anteriormente  contra en el caso contra “THE QUEEN OF BEER” donde el Tribunal de Marcas y Junta de Apelación (TTAB) falló a favor de Budweiser. En ese caso, el TTAB dictaminó que los consumidores pueden creer erróneamente que “THE QUEEN OF BEERS” supone una extensión de la producción de Budweiser dirigida las mujeres. Este hecho, combinado con la fama que ostenta Budweiser, justifica el fallo a favor de Budweiser.

Los propietarios de She  Beverage Co. argumentaron que la cerveza estaba dirigida a las mujeres: "Nuestro mensaje es para las mujeres. Creemos que todas las mujeres son reinas. Ese fue el origen del nombre y por lo que se eligió  “Reina de la cerveza”. Pero este argumento no pareció ayudarles a su defensa.

La marca Budweiser no limita su cerveza a un destinatario en particular dentro del mercado, y sus productos son distribuidos por "canales habituales dentro del mercado, quedando al alcance de todos los consumidores." Por tanto se presume que los consumidores de Budweiser incluye a todos los consumidores potenciales de cerveza, incluyendo por lo tanto a las mujeres. Cuando los productos y los consumidores coinciden en el mismo mercado, las marcas renombradas están dotadas de una protección mas extensa frente a una marca desconocida.

Por ultimo en su oposición Budweiser apuntó que ante la posibilidad  subyacente de registrar la “THE QUEEN OF BEER”, la marca no estaba en uso en el comercio, tal como lo exige la Ley Federal de Marcas, pues las ventas y el uso de la marca quedaban limitadas al estado de  California. En efecto, la Ley Lanham requiere que una marca sea "utilizada en el comercio" con para poder ser registrada, lo cual queda  definido como "todo el comercio que lícitamente debe ser regulado por el Congreso."

La Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de EE.UU, siguiendo el precedente de la Corte Suprema, ha interpretado “comercio" como “comercio interestatal”,  es decir el comercio entre los estados.

Por tanto, el argumento de Budweiser presenta otra manera de invalidar la marca “THE QUEEN OF BEER”, incluso si el TTAB considerase que los consumidores pueden distinguir la nueva “Reina de la cerveza” de Budweiser.

She Beverage Co. planea luchar esta oposición, pero la naturaleza de la marca renombrada Budweiser, la identidad de los productos y los consumidores similares, pueden dificultar la notablemente esta defensa.”

Si eres un abogado profesional y te gustaría participar y publicar un articulo relacionado con la Propiedad Industrial manda un correo a la siguiente dirección: carolina.s.margareto@gmail.com

Muchas gracias por compartir!

G. K. Chesterton and the Intellectual Property rights in Spain

On April 13th 2015 The High Court delivered a speech about author's post mortem protection rights.

The battle about authors rights on this occasion was led by The Royal Literacy Foundation which holds the Intelectual Copyright of the works by Gilbert Keith Chesterton better known as GK Chesterton a twentieth century English writer and journalist.

The conflict arose when Enokia SA (Valdemar) a Spanish editorial, published without permission several works by the author.  The Royal Literacy Foundation took legal proceedings against Enokia  by exercising the legal actions that correspond to action for injunction, ceasing and  actions and claims for damages.

These claims were based on the fact that author's rights are still in force in Spain and 80 years have not transpired since Chesterton's death in 1936.

Enokia defended themselves by stating that the works were of public owner ship, however The High Court pronounced in favour of The British Foundation as Chesterton died in 1936 whilst article 6 of the 1879 Spanish validity law was sill in force, "80 years after he died".

The High Court also based it's decision on the fact that when the claim was presented there governed. Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 April 12th, of the Intelectual Ownership Law which states in it's fourth decree that "Exploitation rights of works by authors who died before 7th December 1987 will have the same margin of time as in the 10th January 1979 Law Of Intelectual Ownership".

The claimants argued that with this interpretation of the law it was not true that authors from countries in the European Union get a better deal than their Spanish counterparts would have by publishing their works under the validity of the LPI of 1989.  Through putting into effect articles 38 and 39 these works were provisionally or definitely in public control/authority.

The High Court acknowledges that there is no discriminatory treatment for national authors as the  provision 5th from Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12th frees them of the consequences of not having their works passed to public or provisional control/authority through not registering them in the  Intellectual Property Office, without prejudicing rights aquired by third parties.

Therefore the April 13th 2015 decision analizes the series of rules and concludes that as in article 7 of The Berna Convention the works of the English author in Spain are not protected for only 50 years, but for a much longer period of time, 80 years.

With this ruling inheritors of authors who died prior to 1987 can continue enjoying their Intelectual Ownership Rights up to 80 years after their death.  Pleasing news for more than one!

Author: Carolina Sánchez Margareto

My fake pair of Ray-Ban

It's a pleasure to collaborate with lawyers from other countries. Professionally, we often work with Ben Natter of Natter & Natter, an intellectual property law firm in New York. Among the firm's specialties are anti-counterfeting measures, fashion law and ip protection in China.

On this occasion we have an entry on the issue of counterfeiting from the hand of Cynthia Monsour of Natter & Natter. Cynthia specializes in fashion law matters at Natter & Natter and has shared a recent firsthand experience with counterfeit goods.

"It’s always nice to find a “welcome” gift bag waiting in the hotel room when checking in for a friend’s wedding.  A bottle of water, some mints, and hopefully some chocolate is all that’s needed to make a wedding guest happy.  For a recent wedding though, the gift bag had a little surprise…a pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarer folding sunglasses.  Now you are probably thinking that my husband and I must have some pretty generous hedge fund-working friends, and while it’s true that our friends are generous, the sunglasses were obviously fakes.  They looked right, but just didn’t feel right.  And the bride’s recent return from a two-year position in Beijing seemed to point strongly in the direction of counterfeits.  

The average price for legitimate Wayfarer folding sunglasses seems to be around $150 USD.  Ray-Ban Wayfarers were first manufactured in 1956 and were made popular by James Dean and John F. Kennedy.  In the 1980s, Wayfarers were worn by Tom Cruise in the movie “Risky Business” and Corey Hart in his music video for “Sunglasses At Night.”  Today, they are still as popular as in earlier generations.  That’s why they are copied so frequently.  The company that makes Ray-Bans, Luxottica Group, even has an online form where consumers can report fakes.  See: http://www.ray-ban.com/usa/report-fakes 

Officers from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection try to catch counterfeit sunglasses and other goods as they pass through customs.  On July 13, 2015 in Tampa, Florida, a shipment from China was discovered to contain over 860 counterfeit Ray-Ban sunglasses.  The sunglasses were seized and if the goods were genuine, they would have had an estimated retail value of over $123,000 USD.

Counterfeiting is a huge problem internationally with China accounting for a large share of the counterfeit goods.  What can an international company do to stem the tide of Chinese counterfeit goods?  The first step an international company needs to take is to register its trademarks with China’s Trademark Office.  China is a first-to-file country, which means that until a company registers a trademark in China, it has no legal rights in China to that trademark.  But this step doesn’t stop counterfeit goods because it only gives the company the legal capacity to enforce its rights to that trademark.  To help stop counterfeit goods coming from China, a company’s next step is to then register its trademark with Chinese Customs.  This means that the trademark will be in Chinese Customs’ database and customs officials will be able to check each shipment against their own database.  If they discover a shipment of possibly infringing goods, the company is contacted and has three working days to request seizure of the goods.   

As to my counterfeit Ray-Bans, one pair broke immediately when my husband attempted to show me how not to fold them and the other pair gave me a massive headache at the beach.  I think my eyes will thank me when I toss them in the trash. "
_________________________________________________________________________

Es un placer colaborar con abogados de otros países. En ocasiones trabajamos con Ben Natter de Natter y Natter, una firma de la ley de propiedad intelectual, afincada en Nueva York. Entre las especialidades de la empresa se encuentran las medidas de lucha contra la falsificación, Fashion Law y la protección de la propiedad intelectual en China. En esta ocasión el articulo nos centramos en las falsificaciones de la mano de Cynthia Monsour de Natter y Natter. Cynthia esta especializada en Fashion Law en Natter y Natter y comparte con nosotros una reciente experiencia de primera mano con los productos falsificados.

“Siempre es agradable encontrar una bolsa de "bienvenida" regalo esperando en la habitación cuando llegamos al hotel para la boda de un amigo. Una botella de agua, algunos caramelos refrescantes, y es de esperar un poco de chocolate es todo lo que se necesita para hacer un invitado feliz. Sin embargo, en una boda reciente, sin embargo, la bolsa de regalos tenía una pequeña sorpresa ... un par de Ray-Ban Wayfarer plegables. Seguro que estáis pensando probablemente que mi marido y yo debemos tener amigos bastante generosos, y si bien es cierto que lo son, las gafas de sol eran obviamente falsas. Sentaban bien, pero simplemente no te hacían sentir bien. El reciente regreso de la novia  que había vivido dos años en Beijing parecía apuntar fuertemente en la dirección de las falsificaciones.

El precio medio de las gafas de sol Wayfarer plegables originales oscila sobre $ 150 USD. Las Ray-Ban Wayfarer fueron fabricados por primera vez en 1956 y se hicieron populares por James Dean y John F. Kennedy. En la década de 1980, caminantes fueron usados por Tom Cruise en la película "Risky Business" y Corey Hart en su vídeo musical para " Sunglasses At Night ". Hoy en día siguen siendo tan populares como generaciones atrás. Es por eso que su falsificación es tan frecuente. La empresa fabricante de Ray-Ban, Luxottica Group, incluso tiene un formulario en línea donde los consumidores pueden denunciar las falsificaciones. Ver: http://www.ray-ban.com/usa/report-fakes

Los funcionarios de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras intentan incautar las gafas de sol falsificados y otras mercancías que a su paso por las aduanas. El 13 de julio, 2015, en Tampa, Florida, se descubrió un cargamento de China por contener más de 860 gafas de sol de sol Ray-Ban falsificadas. Las gafas de sol fueron incautadas, de haber sido productos originales, habrían tenido un valor de venta estimado de más de $ 123,000 USD.

La falsificación China es el gran problema internacional y representa una gran parte de los productos falsificados. ¿Qué puede hacer una empresa internacional para detener la ola de productos falsificados chinos? El primer paso para una empresa internacional necesita tomar es registrar sus marcas registradas en la Oficina de Marcas de China. En China rige en principio de prioridad registral, lo que significa que hasta que una empresa registra su marca en China, no tiene derechos legales sobre ella. Pero este paso no frena los productos falsificados, ya que sólo permite a la empresa la capacidad legal para hacer valer sus derechos sobre la marca. Para ayudar a detener los productos falsificados procedentes de China, el siguiente paso de una empresa esregistrar su marca con la Aduana china. Esto significa que la marca estará en la base de datos de Aduanas de China "y los funcionarios de aduanas podrá comprobar cada envío con su base de datos. De modo que si descubren un cargamento de mercancías infractoras, tras contactar con la empresa contaran con  tres días hábiles para solicitar la incautación de los productos.

En cuanto a mis gafas falsificadas Ray-Ban, un par se rompió de inmediato cuando mi marido intentó enseñarme cómo no doblarlas y el otro par me dio un terrible dolor de cabeza en la playa. Creo que mis ojos me lo agradecerán cuando las tiraré a la basura.”

Autor: Ms.Cynthia Monsour