CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 11 janvier 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2E9152CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   005 11.01.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday 11 January 2005 at 9.00 a.m., on the admissibility and merits in the case of Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal (application no. 73049/01).   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a company, Anheuser-Busch Inc., which is an American public limited company with its registered office in St Louis (Missouri, United States). It produces beer and sells it under the brand name “Budweiser” in a number of countries around the world.   Summary of the facts   In 1981 the applicant company applied to the Portuguese National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI) to register “Budweiser” as a trademark. The INPI did not grant the application immediately because “Budweiser Bier” had already been registered as a designation of origin on behalf of a Czechoslovak company, Budejovicky Budvar. In 1995 the applicant company obtained a court order setting aside the registration of that designation, and the INPI subsequently registered the “Budweiser” trademark.   However, the Czech company contested that decision in the Lisbon Court of First Instance, relying on the “1986 Agreement”, a bilateral treaty between Portugal and Czechoslovakia (now applicable in the Czech Republic) which came into force in 1987, protecting registered designations of origin. The Court of First Instance found against it, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision and ordered the INPI to refuse to register “Budweiser” as a trademark.   The applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal in 2001, holding that the designation of origin “Ceskebudejovicky Budvar”, which translated into German as “Budweis” or “Budweiss”, was protected by the 1986 Agreement. The registration of “Budweiser” as a trademark on behalf of the applicant company was therefore set aside.   Complaint   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complains that the application of the 1986 Agreement, which came into force after it had applied for registration of the “Budweiser” trademark, infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It argues that under existing international legal instruments, the right to protection of a trademark is secured from the date on which the application to register it is made and that it was deprived of that right without receiving any compensation, despite the fact that there were no public-interest grounds to justify affording protection to a registered designation of origin on the basis of the treaty between Portugal and Czechoslovakia.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 23 July 2001.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), substitute judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   João Manuel da Silva Miguel , Agent ,   António-Serge de Pinho Campinos , Adviser ;   Applicant :   Burkhart Goebel , Dietrich C. Olghart , Counsel . A. Ribeiro Mendes , Adviser.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.