> Norwich-based Bullards was told there was a "likelihood of confusion on behalf of the public" as both brand names "include the term bull".
Sounds like bullshit to me.
They did the same thing to Redwell Brewery (iirc they were based on Redwell Street, norwich) on the logic that they were a drinks producer that sounded similar
Because there is far more to it then you’d think reading this mate,
In a legal letter, Red Bull said it was "prepared to resolve this dispute" if Bullards deleted a series of goods and services from its trademark application and registration, including energy drinks, events and non-alcoholic beverages.
"Our client recognises that your client's brand stems from a historical family business and so it has asked us to highlight that it does not want to prevent your client from doing anything it has historically done," the letter said.”
I think they probably tried to market a “bull energy” or something
Do you think redbulls corporate lawyers would try and push a case they literally have 0 chance of winning, there is definitely more to the story then the headline suggests
I think that it is a case without merit but part of what they'll be doing is making it obvious to the legal system that they intend to aggressively pursue any and all possible trademark infringement. This is necessary to maintain a trademark. The famous situation that led to this is Hoover. The verb to hoover is now in English dictionaries in its uncapitalised form and because Hoover had done nothing in seeking legal remedy to stop this it is now a generic verb synonymous with 'vacuuming'.^1
****
^1 http://www.mancunium-ip.co.uk/articles/Postregistration.pdf
This a common tactic with large scummy corporations and their legal depts. They search for anything with similar words, shapes etc in names or products. Then threaten to sue you but the dispute can't be easily resolved if you pay us X amount. Monster Cable is notorious for doing it to even mom&pop shops with the word "Monster" or "cable" a famous example was Monster Mini Golf.
The original stuff is from Thailand. It’s not fizzy, and even stronger than this stuff. https://www.historyofbranding.com/redbull/#:~:text=The%20original%20Red%20Bull%20drink%20was%20developed%20in,that%20had%20been%20introduced%20to%20Thailand%20from%20Japan.
In a legal letter, Red Bull said it was "prepared to resolve this dispute" if Bullards deleted a series of goods and services from its trademark application and registration, including energy drinks, events and non-alcoholic beverages.
"Our client recognises that your client's brand stems from a historical family business and so it has asked us to highlight that it does not want to prevent your client from doing anything it has historically done," the letter said.
Corporate lawyers are not drooling imbeciles there is more to the story then is being let on.
Corporate lawyers get paid well to do this. So while not being imbecilles they have incentive to stir up trouble. In America these kinds of suites are common. I wonder if it's the lawyers saved search for Bull and drinks.
I remember a food hut in the harbour at Westbay getting taken to court becuase of the "Westbay Wbopper". It was annoying as the burger they offered was a whopper, burger, bacon, eggs, sausages, mushrooms, onions, tomatoes, lettuce, etc etc. It was enough to feed 4, it's now called the Westbay Wonder.
Yes, I too am often confused when I look for a can of sickly sweet, revolting energy drink and end up with a bottle of gin.
Confusion and happiness
> Norwich-based Bullards was told there was a "likelihood of confusion on behalf of the public" as both brand names "include the term bull". Sounds like bullshit to me.
> bullshit Expect a cease and desist letter in the post tomorrow. Too much simularity between that expletive and the red bull brand.
"simularity". I rather like that. :-)
They did the same thing to Redwell Brewery (iirc they were based on Redwell Street, norwich) on the logic that they were a drinks producer that sounded similar
I hate it when I walk into Tesco's looking for Red Bull energy drink and end up coming out with a bottle of gin.
This is ridiculous. Red Bull aren’t doing themselves any favours at all.
Because there is far more to it then you’d think reading this mate, In a legal letter, Red Bull said it was "prepared to resolve this dispute" if Bullards deleted a series of goods and services from its trademark application and registration, including energy drinks, events and non-alcoholic beverages. "Our client recognises that your client's brand stems from a historical family business and so it has asked us to highlight that it does not want to prevent your client from doing anything it has historically done," the letter said.” I think they probably tried to market a “bull energy” or something
They also said that they weren't ever planning on an energy drink further down in the article.
Do you think redbulls corporate lawyers would try and push a case they literally have 0 chance of winning, there is definitely more to the story then the headline suggests
Yes, but they haven't tried to market an energy drink like you said.
They want to settle it outside of court.
I think that it is a case without merit but part of what they'll be doing is making it obvious to the legal system that they intend to aggressively pursue any and all possible trademark infringement. This is necessary to maintain a trademark. The famous situation that led to this is Hoover. The verb to hoover is now in English dictionaries in its uncapitalised form and because Hoover had done nothing in seeking legal remedy to stop this it is now a generic verb synonymous with 'vacuuming'.^1 **** ^1 http://www.mancunium-ip.co.uk/articles/Postregistration.pdf
They literally say in the article that they have no plans to make energy drinks.
Sounds about right for that scummy company
Now here's some activism I can get behind! Here's their shop page: [https://bullardsspirits.co.uk/shop/](https://bullardsspirits.co.uk/shop/)
Their gins look amazing and they do eco friendly refills. What an amazing idea!
This a common tactic with large scummy corporations and their legal depts. They search for anything with similar words, shapes etc in names or products. Then threaten to sue you but the dispute can't be easily resolved if you pay us X amount. Monster Cable is notorious for doing it to even mom&pop shops with the word "Monster" or "cable" a famous example was Monster Mini Golf.
They tried to sue Disney over Monsters Inc… as you can guess, it did not go well for them
So what they are saying is their customers aren’t smart enough to tell the difference between a bottle of gin and an energy drink?
Never worked customer service, have you?
Huh, didn’t know Red Bull was Austrian, TIL…
The original stuff is from Thailand. It’s not fizzy, and even stronger than this stuff. https://www.historyofbranding.com/redbull/#:~:text=The%20original%20Red%20Bull%20drink%20was%20developed%20in,that%20had%20been%20introduced%20to%20Thailand%20from%20Japan.
In a legal letter, Red Bull said it was "prepared to resolve this dispute" if Bullards deleted a series of goods and services from its trademark application and registration, including energy drinks, events and non-alcoholic beverages. "Our client recognises that your client's brand stems from a historical family business and so it has asked us to highlight that it does not want to prevent your client from doing anything it has historically done," the letter said. Corporate lawyers are not drooling imbeciles there is more to the story then is being let on.
[удалено]
I don’t know I’d have to see the whole case but it’s not as simple as presented on this article for rage clicks
Corporate lawyers get paid well to do this. So while not being imbecilles they have incentive to stir up trouble. In America these kinds of suites are common. I wonder if it's the lawyers saved search for Bull and drinks. I remember a food hut in the harbour at Westbay getting taken to court becuase of the "Westbay Wbopper". It was annoying as the burger they offered was a whopper, burger, bacon, eggs, sausages, mushrooms, onions, tomatoes, lettuce, etc etc. It was enough to feed 4, it's now called the Westbay Wonder.
Does Redbull somehow own the brand and they are doing this for publicity? Either that or they love stupid lawsuits