Red Bull’s reputation and well-known trademarks logo Big Horn

Red Bull has a reputation of vigorously enforcing its trademark rights. Actions are taken against every new player in the market for energy drinks, using the word BULL or any other animal depicted in the logo. Sometimes the branding differs so much from the Red Bull trademark that it becomes questionable whether a consumer will confuse them. But as the Red Bull trademark has been such a well-known brand for years, it can often act successfully against “infringers”.

In 2016, Big Horn files a trademark for its logo in the European Union. Red Bull objects invoking a number of its trademarks, including the logo of the fighting red bulls in front of a yellow sun background. Market figures, marketing costs, campaigns and research are submitted showing the reputation of this logo.

Red bull gets its way. Even though the similarity between the trademarks is low, the public will still see a link with the well-known brand. The filed trademark uses the same concept: two horned animals duelling. Big Horn seeks to take advantage of the great popularity of Red Bull. The application is therefore refused.

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?