98 Budejovický Budvar, národní podn

98 Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc
(Case C-482/09)
Court of Justice of the European Union
President of Chamber A Tizzano, M Ilešic, E Levits, M Safjan, M Berger, and V Trstenjak
2010 Nov 24; 2011 Feb 3; Sept 22
Trade mark—Registration—Acquiescence—Application to invalidate registration of mark on grounds of
similarity with earlier mark—Statutory provision disentitling proprietor of earlier mark to relief after five
years' acquiescence in use of registered trade mark—Meaning of “acquiesced”—Date of commencement of
five-year period—Whether period running if earlier mark not registered—Whether earlier mark prevailing
even after long period of honest concurrent use of two identical marks— Council Directive 89/104/EEC, arts
4, 9
The claimant and the defendant were breweries established respectively in the Czech Republic and the
United States of America. From the early 1970s they both distributed beers in the United Kingdom under a
trade mark that consisted of, or included, the word “Budweiser”. In 1976 the claimant applied to register the
mark “Bud”. In December 1979 the defendant applied to register “Budweiser”. The claimant opposed the
defendant's application and, in June 1989, made a cross-application to register the same mark, which the de-
fendant opposed. In February 2000, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and cross-application, fol-
lowing which, on 19 May 2000, both parties were entered as proprietors of the “Budweiser” mark under the
Trade Marks Act 1938 . The 1938 Act expressly permitted the simultaneous registration of identical or con-
fusingly similar marks in cases of honest concurrent use. Meanwhile the Trade Marks Act 1994 , which en-
acted in English law the Trade Marks Directive 89/1041 , replaced the 1938 Act. Article 4 of the Directive
provided that a registered trade mark would be declared invalid if it was identical to an earlier trade mark
and the goods for which it was applied were identical with the goods for which the earlier trade mark was
protected. However, by article 9 if the proprietor of the earlier mark had acquiesced for a period of five suc-
cessive years in the use of the later mark he was no longer entitled to a declaration that the later mark was
invalid. On 18 May 2005, four years and 364 days after the registration of the parties' “Budweiser” marks,
the defendant applied to the Trade Marks Registry for a declaration of invalidity of the claimant's registra-
tion of the mark. That application was premised on the ground that, by virtue of its earlier application, its
mark was an “earlier trade mark” for the purposes of article 4 ; that the marks and goods were identical; and
that it had not been deprived by article 9 of its entitlement to a declaration, since the five-year period of ac-
quiescence specified therein had not expired at the time of the application. The timing of the application was
such that it was not served on the claimant until after the five-year period had expired, thereby disabling the
claimant from making a cross-application based on its earlier trademark “Bud”. The Trade Marks Registry
granted the declaration sought by the defendant and the High Court upheld that decision. On the claimant's
appeal the following questions were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. (1) What was
the meaning of “acquiesced” for the purposes of article 9(1) of the Trade Marks Directive ? (2) When did
the period of five successive years commence for the purposes of article 9 ? (3) Did article 4(1)(a) enable the
proprietor of an earlier *299 trade mark to prevail even where there had been a long period of honest con-
current use of two identical trade marks for identical goods?
On the reference—
Held , (1) “acquiescence” within the meaning of article 9(1) of Council Directive 89/104 constituted a
concept of European Union law, the meaning and scope of which had to be identical in all member states;
that a person who acquiesced remained inactive when faced with a situation which he was in a position to
oppose; and that, therefore, a proprietor of an earlier trade mark did not acquiesce for the purposes of article
9(1) if he was not in any position to oppose the use by a third party of a later trade mark identical with his
own (post, judgment, paras 37, 44–45, 50; operative part, para 1).
(2) That the prerequisites for the running of the five-year period of acquiescence under article 9 were, first,
registration of the later mark in the member state concerned, secondly, the application for registration of that
mark being made in good faith, thirdly, use of the later trade mark by its proprietor in the member state
where it had been registered and, fourthly, knowledge by the proprietor of the earlier mark that the later
mark had been registered and used after its registration; that where those conditions were satisfied, however,
the fact that the earlier mark had not been registered did not prevent the five-year period from running (post,
judgment, paras 53, 56–59, 62; operative part, para 2).
(3) That a later registered trade mark was likely to be declared invalid pursuant to article 4(1)(a) of the Dir-
ective where its use had or was liable to have an adverse effect on the essential function of the trade mark,
namely to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods; that a long period of honest concurrent use of two
identical marks designating identical products neither had nor was liable to have an adverse effect on the es-
sential function of the trade mark; and that, accordingly, in those circumstances, the proprietor of the earlier
mark could not obtain the cancellation of the later mark (post, judgment, paras 74, 82, 84; operative part,
para 3).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
• American Clothing Associates NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Joined Cases C-202/08P and C-208/08P) [2009] ECR I-6933; [2010] ETMR 22 , ECJ
• Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik (trading as Budweiser Budvar Brewery)
[1984] FSR 413, CA
• Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (Case C-40/01) [2005] Ch 97; [2004] 3 WLR 1048; [2003] ECR I-
2439; [2003] RPC 717; [2003] ETMR 1032 , ECJ
• Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2008] EWHC 263 (Ch); [2008] RPC 480;
[2009] EWCA Civ 1022; [2010] RPC 173, CA
• Budweiser Trade Marks, In re [2000] RPC 906, CA
• Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt, Application brought by (Case C-210/06) [2009] Ch 354; [2009] Bus LR
1233; [2009] 3 WLR 777; [2009] All ER (EC) 269; [2008] ECR I-9641; [2010] 1 BCLC 523 , ECJ
• Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG (Case C-127/09) [2010] ETMR 703; [2010]
FSR 875 , ECJ
• Davidoff (Zino) SA v A & G Imports Ltd (Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99) [2002] Ch 109; [2002] 2
WLR 321; [2002] All ER (EC) 55; [2001] ECR I-8691; [2002] RPC 403; [2002] ETMR 109 , ECJ
• Develey Holding GmbH & Co Beteiligungs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
(Case C-238/06P) [2007] ECR I-9375; [2008] ETMR 367 , ECJ
• dos Santos Palhota, Criminal Proceedings against (Case C-515/08) [2011] 1 CMLR 1103 , ECJ*300
• Easycar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading (Case C-336/03) [2005] All ER (EC) 834; [2005] ECR I-1947 ,
ECJ
• Ekro BV Vee— en Vleeshandel v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees (Case 327/82) [1984] ECR 107 , ECJ
• Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT v Ayuntamiento de la Línea de la Concepción (Case C-
151/09) [2010] ICR 1248 , ECJ
• Google France Sarl v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08) [2011] Bus LR 1;
[2011] All ER (C) 411; [2010] ECR I-2417; [2010] RPC 569; [2010] ETMR 503 , ECJ
• LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (Case C-291/00) [2003] ECR I-2799; [2003] FSR 608; [2003]
ETMR 1005 , ECJ
• Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci SpA (Case C-145/05) [2006] ECR I-3703; [2007] FSR 170; [2006] ETMR
988 , ECJ
• L'Oréal SA v Bellure NV (Case C-487/07) [2010] Bus LR 303; [2010] All ER (EC) 28; [2009] ECR I-
5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 987 , ECJ
• Luxembourg, State of the Grand Duchy of v Linster (Case C-287/98) [2000] ECR I-6917 , ECJ
• Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) (Case C-467/08) [2011] FSR
416 , ECJ
• R (International Air Transport Association) v Department of Transport (Case C-344/04) [2006] ECR I-403
, ECJ
• Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Case C-355/96)
[1999] Ch 77; [1998] 3 WLR 1218; [1998] All ER (EC) 769; [1998] ECR I-4799; [1998] FSR 729; [1998]
ETMR 539 , ECJ
• Société fiduciare nationale d'expertise comptable v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonc-
tion publique (Case C-119/09) [2011] 3 CMLR 20 , ECJ
• Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07) [2009] Bus LR 1016; [2009] 1
Lloyd's Rep 406; [2008] ECR I-11061 , ECJ
REFERENCE by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
By an order dated 12 November 2009, in proceedings between the claimant, Budejovický Budvar, národní
podnik, and the defendant, Anheuser-Busch Inc, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) referred to the Court
of Justice for a preliminary ruling questions, post, judgment, para 26, on the interpretation of articles 4(1)(a)
and 9(1) of Directive 89/104 concerning the meaning of “acquiescence” and whether the period of limitation
in consequence of acquiescence could start running before the proprietor of the earlier trade mark had re-
gistered its trade mark and, if so, what were the prerequisites for the running of that time period.
The Judge Rapporteur was Judge M Safjan. The facts are stated in the judgment of the court.
J Mellor and S Malynicz (instructed by M Blair ) for Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik.
B Goebel for Anheuser-Busch Inc.
M Smolek ,

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

98 Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc (Kasus C-482/09) Pengadilan Uni Eropa Presiden Tizzano Chamber A, M Ilešic, E Levits, M Safjan, M Berger dan V Trstenjak 2010 tanggal 24 November; 2011 Feb 3; September 22 Merek dagang-pendaftaran — persetujuan — aplikasi untuk membatalkan pendaftaran tanda pada dasar kemiripan dengan tanda awal — ketentuan perundang-undangan disentitling pemilik sebelumnya Markus lega setelah lima tahun persetujuan penggunaan merek dagang terdaftar — makna "mempersetujui"-tanggal dimulainya lima tahun — Apakah periode berjalan jika sebelumnya menandai tidak terdaftar — Apakah sebelumnya menandai berlaku bahkan setelah periode panjang digunakan bersamaan jujur dari dua tanda identik — Council Directive 89/104/EEC, seni 4, 9 Pemohon dan terdakwa yang breweries didirikan masing-masing di Republik Ceko dan Amerika Serikat. Dari awal tahun 1970 keduanya didistribusikan bir di Inggris di bawah merek dagang yang terdiri dari, atau dimasukkan, kata "Budweiser". Pada tahun 1976 pemohon diterapkan untuk mendaftar Tandai "Bud". Pada Desember 1979 terdakwa diterapkan untuk mendaftar "Budweiser". Pemohon menentang terdakwa 's aplikasi dan, pada bulan Juni 1989, membuat lintas-aplikasi untuk mendaftarkan sama menandai, yang de - fendant menentang. Di bulan Februari 2000, Pengadilan Banding menolak aplikasi dan lintas-aplikasi, mengikuti Kampa- bunyi yang, pada 19 Mei 2000, kedua belah pihak dimasukkan sebagai pemilik dari tanda "Budweiser" di bawah Merek dagang bertindak 1938. Undang-undang tahun 1938 diizinkan secara tersurat serentak pendaftaran identik atau mem- tanda-tanda fusingly serupa dalam kasus digunakan bersamaan jujur. Sementara perdagangan Marks Act tahun 1994, yang en- bertindak dalam hukum Inggris perdagangan Marks Directive 89/1041, menggantikan undang-undang tahun 1938. Pasal 4 dari Directive asalkan merek dagang terdaftar akan dinyatakan tidak berlaku jika itu identik dengan merek dagang sebelumnya dan barang yang diaplikasikan identik dengan barang-barang yang telah merek dagang sebelumnya dilindungi. Namun, oleh Pasal 9 jika pemilik tanda awal telah mempersetujui untuk jangka waktu lima suc- cessive tahun penggunaan tanda kemudian ia tidak lagi berhak atas sebuah deklarasi yang kemudian tanda tidak valid. Pada 18 Mei 2005, empat tahun dan 364 hari setelah pendaftaran tanda "Budweiser" pihak, terdakwa diterapkan ke Registry merek dagang untuk Deklarasi ketidakabsahan penuntut registra- tion tanda. Bahwa aplikasi didasarkan pada tanah itu, berdasarkan aplikasi sebelumnya, yang tanda adalah "sebelumnya trade mark" untuk tujuan Pasal 4; tanda dan barang-barang yang sama; dan bahwa ia telah tidak telah dirampas oleh Pasal 9 dengan hak untuk Deklarasi, sejak lima tahun periode ac- quiescence specified therein had not expired at the time of the application. The timing of the application was such that it was not served on the claimant until after the five-year period had expired, thereby disabling the claimant from making a cross-application based on its earlier trademark “Bud”. The Trade Marks Registry granted the declaration sought by the defendant and the High Court upheld that decision. On the claimant's appeal the following questions were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. (1) What was the meaning of “acquiesced” for the purposes of article 9(1) of the Trade Marks Directive ? (2) When did the period of five successive years commence for the purposes of article 9 ? (3) Did article 4(1)(a) enable the proprietor of an earlier *299 trade mark to prevail even where there had been a long period of honest con- current use of two identical trade marks for identical goods?On the reference— Held , (1) “acquiescence” within the meaning of article 9(1) of Council Directive 89/104 constituted a concept of European Union law, the meaning and scope of which had to be identical in all member states; that a person who acquiesced remained inactive when faced with a situation which he was in a position to oppose; and that, therefore, a proprietor of an earlier trade mark did not acquiesce for the purposes of article 9(1) if he was not in any position to oppose the use by a third party of a later trade mark identical with his sendiri (posting, penilaian, paras 37, 44-45, 50; bagian operasi, ayat 1). (2) bahwa prasyarat untuk menjalankan periode lima tahun persetujuan di bawah Pasal 9 adalah, pertama, Pendaftaran kemudian tanda di anggota negara bersangkutan, kedua, aplikasi untuk pendaftaran yang menandai sedang dibuat itikad baik, ketiga, penggunaan merek dagang kemudian oleh pemilik perusahaan di negara anggota mana itu telah terdaftar dan, keempat, menandai pengetahuan oleh pemilik sebelumnya yang kemudian bahwa Mark telah terdaftar dan digunakan setelah pendaftaran; yang mana syarat merasa puas, namun, fakta bahwa tanda awal telah tidak terdaftar tidak mencegah periode lima tahun dari menjalankan (pos, penghakiman, paras 53, 56-59, 62; Bagian operasi, ayat 2). (3) bahwa kemudian terdaftar merek dagang adalah cenderung dinyatakan tidak berlaku sesuai dengan Pasal 4(1)(a) Dir- ective mana penggunaannya memiliki atau bertanggung jawab kepada memiliki efek buruk pada fungsi penting merek dagang, yaitu untuk menjamin konsumen asal barang; yang lama digunakan bersamaan jujur dua tanda-tanda identik yang menunjuk produk yang identik tidak memiliki atau bertanggung jawab untuk memiliki efek buruk pada es- fungsi sential merek dagang; dan itu, dengan demikian, dalam situasi tersebut, pemilik sebelumnya Mark tidak bisa memperoleh pembatalan kemudian tanda (posting, penilaian, paras 74, 82, 84; bagian operasional, para 3). The following cases are referred to in the judgment: • American Clothing Associates NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Joined Cases C-202/08P and C-208/08P) [2009] ECR I-6933; [2010] ETMR 22 , ECJ • Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik (trading as Budweiser Budvar Brewery) [1984] FSR 413, CA • Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (Case C-40/01) [2005] Ch 97; [2004] 3 WLR 1048; [2003] ECR I- 2439; [2003] RPC 717; [2003] ETMR 1032 , ECJ • Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2008] EWHC 263 (Ch); [2008] RPC 480; [2009] EWCA Civ 1022; [2010] RPC 173, CA • Budweiser Trade Marks, In re [2000] RPC 906, CA • Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt, Application brought by (Case C-210/06) [2009] Ch 354; [2009] Bus LR 1233; [2009] 3 WLR 777; [2009] All ER (EC) 269; [2008] ECR I-9641; [2010] 1 BCLC 523 , ECJ • Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG (Case C-127/09) [2010] ETMR 703; [2010] FSR 875 , ECJ • Davidoff (Zino) SA v A & G Imports Ltd (Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99) [2002] Ch 109; [2002] 2 WLR 321; [2002] All ER (EC) 55; [2001] ECR I-8691; [2002] RPC 403; [2002] ETMR 109 , ECJ • Develey Holding GmbH & Co Beteiligungs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Case C-238/06P) [2007] ECR I-9375; [2008] ETMR 367 , ECJ • dos Santos Palhota, Criminal Proceedings against (Case C-515/08) [2011] 1 CMLR 1103 , ECJ*300 • Easycar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading (Case C-336/03) [2005] All ER (EC) 834; [2005] ECR I-1947 , ECJ • Ekro BV Vee— en Vleeshandel v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees (Case 327/82) [1984] ECR 107 , ECJ • Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT v Ayuntamiento de la Línea de la Concepción (Case C- 151/09) [2010] ICR 1248 , ECJ • Google France Sarl v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08) [2011] Bus LR 1; [2011] All ER (C) 411; [2010] ECR I-2417; [2010] RPC 569; [2010] ETMR 503 , ECJ • LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (Case C-291/00) [2003] ECR I-2799; [2003] FSR 608; [2003] ETMR 1005 , ECJ • Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci SpA (Case C-145/05) [2006] ECR I-3703; [2007] FSR 170; [2006] ETMR 988 , ECJ • L'Oréal SA v Bellure NV (Case C-487/07) [2010] Bus LR 303; [2010] All ER (EC) 28; [2009] ECR I- 5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 987 , ECJ • Luxembourg, State of the Grand Duchy of v Linster (Case C-287/98) [2000] ECR I-6917 , ECJ • Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) (Case C-467/08) [2011] FSR 416 , ECJ • R (International Air Transport Association) v Department of Transport (Case C-344/04) [2006] ECR I-403 , ECJ • Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Case C-355/96) [1999] Ch 77; [1998] 3 WLR 1218; [1998] All ER (EC) 769; [1998] ECR I-4799; [1998] FSR 729; [1998] ETMR 539 ECJ • Société fiduciare nationale d'expertise comptable v Ministre du anggaran, des Comptes publik et de la Fonc - tion publique (kasus C-119/09) [2011] 3 CMLR 20, ECJ • Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (kasus C-549/07) [2009] Bus LR 1016; [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 406; [2008] ECR SAYA-11061, ECJ REFERENSI oleh pengadilan banding (sipil Divisi), England dan Wales Menurut urutan tanggal 12 November 2009 di proses beracara antara pemohon, Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik, dan terdakwa, Inc Anheuser-Busch, pengadilan banding (sipil Divisi) disebut pengadilan keadilan untuk pertanyaan awal berkuasa, posting, penilaian, ayat 26, pada interpretasi artikel 4(1)(a) dan 9(1) dari Directive 89/104 mengenai arti dari "persetujuan" dan apakah periode pembatasan karena persetujuan bisa mulai menjalankan sebelum pemilik merek dagang yang sebelumnya telah re- gistered perdagangan menandai dan, jika demikian, apa yang prasyarat untuk menjalankan jangka waktu tersebut. Pelapor hakim adalah hakim M Safjan. Fakta-fakta yang dinyatakan dalam penghakiman Mahkamah. J Mellor dan Malynicz S (diperintahkan oleh M Blair) untuk Budejovický Budvar, národní podnik. B Goebel untuk Anheuser-Busch Inc M Smolek,