Red Bull – The Bulldog: is prior use a due cause?

THE BULLDOG for energy drinks. RED BULLS oldest trademark dates from July 11th 1983, the Bulldog’s oldest registration (not registered for energy drinks) is a few days younger, july 14th 1983. Tensions arise when The Bulldog introduces their own energy drink under their name. The District Court rejected all of Red Bull’s claims (2007). However, in the appeal case in 2010 most of Red Bull’s claims are sustained. The Court of Appeal states that RED BULL is a reputable trademarks. BULL is more distinctive than RED and is a part of The BULLdog. Because of this the consumer will assume a link between the two marks.

The Bulldog filed for appeal with the Court of Cassation. The Bulldog claimed that the Court of Appeal did not interpret the due cause it has in using their name for energy drinks correctly. The Bulldog has been used since 1975 for various goods. Using this trademark for any additional products, such as energy drinks, is a logical step. The Court of Appeal only judged whether or not use of the name is necessary and not if there was another due cause. Because of the various Adwords cases the term due cause has been stretched somewhat. The Court of Cassation referred the matter to the European Court of Justice. The European Court will have to clarify what constitutes due cause. It is expected that this would entail more than was previously assumed. All is most certainly not lost for The Bulldog.

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?