Ah - I did check my past posts, and only saw the ones about using it, but you're more determined that I was :)
It may only be on the match shirts because City were aware there was a potential issue in the first place.
The trademark law bit linked to is almost certainly not relevant because that refers to the registration - which has already happened. I believe that sometimes trademarks can be challenged even after registration, but as Superdry isn't the kind of use they're talking about above, I doubt that'll be an issue.
The reason I replied to the first post, was that people were suggesting the journalists were targeting City, when it wasn't the club's problem. The articles appear to be correct, in that it is City that are being targeted, not Asahi, or Puma. And as that's the case, I was supposing why it might be - and the best I can suggest is that Superdry's trademark only covers the word on clothing (so they can't target the beer), and City are the ones responsible for putting it on the shirts.
I don't know if they'll win, but certainly they won't be laughed out of court, as they appear to have a strong argument. I do suspect that there will be some kind of negotiated agreement, rather than a court case, but that's just a guess.
