RED BULL defeats RED DRAGON

Red Bull protects, since the launch of its new energy drinks, its brand with tooth and nail. Legal Proceedings are started everywhere (with varying success) against energy drinks brands that contain the element RED or BULL. In this way Red Bull tries to avoid diluting of its brand and retain a strong position in the market for energy drinks. Recently there was an interesting case in the Benelux. RED BULL opposed the application for RED DRAGON .    

Rightly so, ruled the Benelux trademark authorities. The logos vary, but there are also some similarities. Foremost, the word RED in both brands.In addition, both contain animal logos. The RED BULL logo has two red bulls charging each other, while the disputed logo has two dragons who are about to attack each other. These animals are associated with strength, virility and unequalled power. On the other hand, there are some remarkable differences. Therefore, the marks are deemed visually, aurally and conceptually similar but only to a small extent.
Confusion implies some interdependence between the similarity of the marks and the similarity of the products. This case is about identical products. Because the products are identical, which compensates for the low degree of similarity between the signs, the trademark authorities decided to refuse the logo RED DRAGON.

 

trademarks



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?