Have you ever wondered why some brands get under the legal radar because of trademark infringement? Well, sometimes, the accusations can be false. In this case, an Austrian energy drink brand called Red Bull lost the legal battle against the old-school Gin maker firm Bullards.
Last year, Red Bull’s attorneys sent a letter to the Norwich-based spirits company Bullards challenging the registration of Bullards as a trademark. The letter said that because both brand names “contained the term bull,” there was a “likelihood of misinterpretation on the part of the public.” In addition, Bullards was legally bound in the letter to striking off several products and services, including energy drinks, occasions, and non-alcoholic beverages, from its trademark application and registration.
Are the two companies of the exact origin?
It is clearly defined that legal rivals have different origins. Richard Bullard established Bullards in 1837, producing beer and importing wine and spirits until it was acquired by the national brewery Watneys in 1963. In 2015, the Bullards brand was brought back, with the company concentrating on gin. Around 150 years after Bullards, the Austrian company Red Bull was established in 1987. Since the corporation has a history that spans over two centuries, the public has appeared to be entirely unconfounded by the name.
Red Bull’s attorneys sent a letter to Bullard opposing the govt jobs application for a trademark, arguing that there was a chance the general public might confuse the two products, as the word ‘bull’ being present in the name of the brands. Being legally accused by the energy drink giant, Russel Evans of Bullards was advised by many people to accept the claim of Red Bull, but he and the team decided to take a stance against the goliath. The Gin-makers are proud of their big win.
What was the final take?
The hearing outcome, which was decided this month, determined that Red Bull’s challenge to the trademark application was ineffective.
“Bullards is not in any way a logical brand extension of Red Bull,” said Allan James, a senior hearing officer at the UK Intellectual Property Office, as part of his ruling.
Bullards’ trademark attorney, Luke Portnow, claimed that Red Bull and Bullards are in such distinct industries that no amount of fame in the energy drink industry would be sufficient to bar usage or registration in this country.
The decision confirms that a conclusion of indirect confusion cannot be made only because two marks have an ordinary constituent. When asked to say their view on the ruling, the Red Bull spokesperson avoided saying anything on the legal matter.
Bullards’ Russell Evans remarked on the inclusion of energy drinks that there are no genuine plans for energy drinks at this time, but he pushed for it and the events category on principle.
Conclusion
Red Bull has falsely accused a firm of a trademark Application before. In 2013, Red Bull threatened to sue Redwell Brewing over its name, which begins with “Red” and ends with “ll,” but then reportedly changed its tune and said there was no conflict over the brand name.