Abstract
This paper will answer questions regarding the Budweiser case study. It will explain what my impressions of the legal minefield that Anheuser-Busch is involved in are, answer why I believe the courts in some countries ruled in favor of Anheuser-Busch while others did not, and explain whether or not I feel that branding was an issue in these battles and provide justification for that belief. Finally, it will explain the reason that I believe Anheuser-Busch bought its Czech rival.
Keywords: case study, Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch, opinion, short answer questions
Crossing Borders – Budweiser
1. My general impressions of the legal minefield that Anheuser-Bush was involved in was that it was a legitimate concern and a byproduct of globalization. While the point is now moot, considering the fact that Anheuser-Bush bought out their rival two years ago, prior to the buyout, the precedents set by those legal cases would have been vital to the legal field as associated with the topic of globalization. While it is true that other countries do not have to take into account the amount of time that a business has been in operation in another country, versus the comparable time that a similar business has been open in their own country, the ability to set legal precedent in these cases is essential in ensuring that the globalization process continues at the same pace at which it has occurred in recent years.
2. I believe that the courts in some countries ruled in favor of Anheuser-Bush while other courts ruled against the company because of their own legal precedents and laws and how they believed those laws would be applicable in regard to the foreign entrants into their current market. The matter was not as much of a concern in courts outside of the U.S. and the Czech Republic given the fact that, in those other countries, both beers were foreign entrants, and as such the matter did not merit the severity that it would have merited in the home countries of either of the beer brands. The preference for one beer company winning over another in specific countries may have likewise had to do with the preference for the beer that won the lawsuit; in other words, the countries in which Anheuser-Bush was more popular, they were more likely to win their lawsuits, while the countries in which Budvar was preferred awarded judgment to that company.
3. I feel as though branding was an issue in these battles and wrangling because this was the primary reason that the lawsuits started; Anheuser-Bush wanted to be able to brand Budweiser in all of the countries in which it gained entry due to the fact that this was their signature brand; it was for this same reason that the Czech company wished to hold on to Budvar so strongly. Both companies wished to ensure that they retained their market segment as a result of the popularity of their brands, and it was for this reason that both companies fought so hard to be able to keep their branding in every country that they gained entry into. While it is true that Anheuser-Bush was in far more countries than Budvar, this did not serve to strengthen their overall argument when they entered a country’s market behind Budvar, as the primary consideration was which brand had been present within the country first.
4. In my opinion, Anheuser-Bush bought its Czech rival because it served as the best means by which to resolve the matter once and for all. In acquiring Budvar, Anheuser-Bush ensured that they would be the only Budweiser available, regardless of which country they were working to gain entry into or had recently gained entry into. It must be said that Anheuser-Bush won solely by virtue of being the larger corporation, for had Budvar been larger or of a comparative size to Anheuser-Bush, then Anheuser-Bush would not have had the available funding to buy out the company, resulting in the continued need to draw out the lawsuits that were in effect. In purchasing the company, Anheuser-Bush effectively stopped the suits, winning via a different manner than that by which they started.
