shutterstock_353934110_Kent Sievers
The failure of the billionaire’s ice cream chain to win its ‘Blizzard’ dispute shows that a formidable IP enforcement strategy still needs to be backed by solid evidence, finds Muireann Bolger.
Owners of large brands have the might and means to assail smaller companies with a flurry of lawsuits if they detect any sign of trademark infringement and/or dilution.
But a trademark loss incurred by billionaire Warren Buffett this month has shown that smaller players can shield themselves from litigation by offering persuasive evidence against the claims.
This week, it emerged that US office supplier WB Mason prevailed against Warren Buffett’s American Dairy Queen (ADQ), after a district court of Minnesota ruled that it had not infringed by using the Blizzard name on its bottled spring water.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at achoudhury@worldipreview.com
Warren Buffett, Dairy Queen, Blizzard, trademarks, dispute
