Red Bull misses

A trademark enables a company to stop other from using trademarks for similar and identical goods. Some trademark owners, however, try to stretch their rights to the very limit. Red Bull is a company known to act against any trademark application that contains the word RED or BULL. Recently the court in Germany had a chance to look into such a matter.

After launching the much bespoken “Fucking Hell” beer in 2010, German drinks manufacturer Hans-Jörg Schaller decided to file an application for the name FUCKING RED for wine. Red Bull opposed this application, but lost in both first- and second instance. The court decided that the trademarks are not sufficiently similar to cause any confusion. Important in this procedure was the fact that the goods, energy drinks and wine, were also not similar. There was therefore no infringement. A wise lesson for trademark owners: Check in advance whether or not a case is viable before taking any definitive legal steps.

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
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
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?