Plaintiff: Red Bull GmbH
Defendant: Crystal Drinks Limited
Case no.: O/081/02
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Industry: Food and Drink
Decision date: 13 Feb, 2002
The opponents based their opposition on their marks RED and RED BULL, and sought the exclusion of "energy/alertness drinks" from the applicants’ specification. Dealing with the matter first under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer noted that the goods were identical/similar and the opponents’ mark (RED BULL) was highly distinctive. However, he found no likelihood of confusion between the marks (RED-X and RED BULL)and went on to consider the matter of the opponents’ mark RED, pending before OHIM, and constituting an earlier trade mark by reason of its filing date. Here he felt that the evidence did not give the word RED anything other than a weak claim to a distinctive character. He went on to compare the marks, and remarked that "where short marks are concerned, particularly short marks that consist of or contain elements that are weakly distinctive in themselves, small differences may suffice to avoid a finding of likelihood of confusion".
RED BULL
RED-X
What is Section 2(e)(3) Refusal - Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive?
Can I submit an Amazon store screenshot as a trademark specimen?
How is "acquired distinctiveness" in trademark law evaluated?
What should I submit as a specimen if I provide e-commerce services instead of producing goods?
If I register a trademark in the US, can I still sell my products in the UK with the US trademark?
