The growing power of the European Union is giving a great advantage to its members while affecting the global trade and the performance of some U.S. multinational companies. An example of such affected companies is the American-based Anheuser-Busc beer brewer. This company and a Czech Republic beer company both claim to have the legal right to use the beer brand name Budweiser. Currently, there are two beer brands under this name and there has been an unending battle between the two countries despite having gone to law courts in an attempt to solve the dispute. This report answers some of the questions concerning the dispute and explains why it would be important for the American company to market its products using the original brand names. It further gives an opinion on how the seemingly never-ending dispute can be settled without court involvement.
It would be quite important for Anheuser- Busc to market its products under their original brand names in different countries. This is because since the company came into existence, it has used those brands to market and sell its products. Thus, it would be wrong for the Czech Republic Company that came into existence several years later to use the same brand names. This can translate into a big loss for the Anheuser- Busc. Company because building a brand name is a big investment both monetary and in terms of time. This, therefore, means that the Czech Republic would be unjustly reaping from the investment of the American company. According to O’Connor (225), the name Budweiser already adopted by this American company gives it a place in the market in most of the world, including North and South America, and in entire Asia. Change of the brand name would thus imply losses since the company would have to start afresh in establishing a new name.
The American-based company would win the dispute case if I were the judge. This is because according to Sumpter, the company began marketing its products under the disputed brand name in 1876, which is 19 years before the Czech company came into being in 1895. This, therefore, means the Czech company should not have adopted a brand name that was already on market. This is a violation of intellectual property rights which is unlawful according to O’Connor (225). Besides, the Czech Republic is already marketing the same product outside U.S. and European Union countries as Czech Var, so they could as well build on this brand name in the disputed market.
In my opinion, this battle can be solved by the two companies outside courts. They could refer back to the time that each was legally authorized to use the brand. This would then mean the first to be registered retains the brand. According to Sumpter (420), the disputes began in 1906, despite both companies having been in the market for quite long, since the disputed brand name had not found its way to the territory dominated by the America-based company. The Czech Republic could therefore consider strategizing on how to market its Czech Var brand name, which is just but a different name from the disputed Budweiser name. Penetration into new markets, working from feedback on its performance and how it has already been perceived in the market would be possible since the name would not be new.
Other strategies that both firms could adopt in the foreign markets in which both compete would be to evaluate the potentials of the different markets and thereafter agree to divide proportionally. Alternatively, either of the companies could modify its brand. Different useful ingredients, with nutritive value, could be added to the original product. The result would be a combination superior to the first one, which should be sold as a different brand. The two can also sign an agreement of a number of years, during which either would be selling in a particular market, after which the other one takes over in an alternating manner.
Works Cited
O’Connor, Bernard. The Law of Geographical Indications. London: Cameron Publishers Ltd, 1994. Web.
Sumpter, Paul. Intellectual Property Law: Principle in Practice. Northcote: CCH New Zealand Publishers Limited. 2006. Web.