Simon Stanes blogs for The IPKat on the Budweiser dispute

No items found.
​
January 1, 1970
#
Trademarking
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Simon Stanes, the head of EIP Brands, has contributed to a post on The IPKat blog following a ruling by the General Court in what could be the end to the long-running Budweiser trademark dispute.

The decision concerned the battle between Anheuser-Busch and Budvar, various aspects of which have been covered in previous EIP newsflashes in August 2012, May 2011, and February 2011; and in an EIP-authored article for US journal Intellectual Property Counselor.

Simon’s post is a collaboration with The IPKat’s lead blogger Jeremy Phillips, and can be read here.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​