Notables.

News.

Archive.

Anheuser-Busch Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Dog Toy Manufacturer.

ST. LOUIS, October 21, 2008 -- Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch was granted a preliminary injunction against a dog toy manufacturer when a federal court determined Anheuser-Busch was likely to succeed on its claim of trademark infringement.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that Anheuser-Busch was likely to succeed on its claim that dog toys bearing the brand BUTTWIPER infringed upon the Budweiser trademark.

The preliminary injunction will prevent VIP Products LLC from selling their BUTTWIPER products until a final decision on the merits is made by the court.

The manufacturer of the BUTTWIPER dog toys, VIP Products LLC, cited last year's federal court decisions in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC and Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC in their defense. These cases involved fashion designers Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger losing their trademark claims brought against manufacturers who sold pet products under the names CHEWY VUITTON and TIMMY HOLEDIGGER. The St. Louis court hearing the Anheuser-Busch argument ruled that the cases involving Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger were inapplicable.

In the Louis Vuitton case, chew toys resembling Louis Vuitton purses were at issue. The court ruled the Louis Vuitton case was different because Louis Vuitton did not sell dog toys with its brand and there was no evidence of confusion. The court also noted there was a significant difference in the cost of any Louis Vuitton product and the dog toy, which the court determined would alert comsumers that the dog toy was not affiliated with the luxury designer. In the Budweiser-Buttwiper case, Anheuser-Busch presented evidence that it does sell pet-related products using the Budweiser brand at a similar cost to the VIP product. BUDWEISER branded pet products included: food & water bowls, frisbees, balls, leashes, collars, and beds. Anheiser-Busch also presented evidence of confusion in the form of a survey.

The Tommy Hilfiger case centered on a perfume for dogs. In this case, the defendant asserted the defense of parody. The court in this case ruled that the parties were not in competition and there was no evidence of confusion between the TOMMY HILFIGER and the TIMMY HOLEDIGGER marks.

In addition to making a claim of trademark infringement, Anheuser-Busch also pled a claim for trademark dilution. A claim of dilution is a claim to recover for damage to a trademark's uniqueness or the goodwill associated with a mark. The court ruled against Anheuser-Busch's dilution claim at the preliminary injunction stage, but Anheuser-Busch will be entitled to proceed with the claim at trial.