Red Bull gives you lawsuits...

[TheAngryDog]

BBC News - Red Bull in trademark dispute with English gin firm Bullards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-5860...

Now I don't know about you, but I always struggle to separate red bull with Bullards as names.

It is preposterous that a copy like red bull should be allowed to flex it's lawyers because another company that has the word bull in its name. What kind of idiot do you have to be to get the two confused, or think that they may he related?

It's Hugo Boss and Boss Brewing all over again. Bull ends.

[BckFlash]

I hope I'm not served papers next time I order a red Bulmers when out and about.

[Al Gorithum]

Should be known as "Redbullies"

[g3org3y]

Bullst!

[Teddy Lop]

I can't see why there's an issue, Bullards looks like something a cultivated person would drink.

[Evercross]

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

[Al Gorithum]

Evercross said:

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

I did read it thanks. They are bullying an underdog like they tried with Redwell Brewery in 2013 (before backing down). Redbullies.

[808 Estate]

I think I will trademark the name Green Ball for my energy drink.
"Green Ball gives you springs" (TM).

[voram]

Evercross said:

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

^^^ This. Any big brand owner needs to keep an eagle eye out for people encroaching into their business territory.

Even people like Lolo Ferrari (banned from trying to market a line of underwear) and Thomas Dolby (court decided that Dolby Labs had no right to restrict the musician from using the name as a musician although he agreed not to use it for electronic instruments) can find themselves in the firing line.

[matchmaker]

Evercross said:

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

Think you should read the article...a Bullards spokesman said:

"But they're saying we can't do events, we can't do soft drinks, which we are going to do because we're going to do tonics, we can't do energy drinks - not that we would ever want to do energy drinks"

[voram]

matchmaker said:

Think you should read the article...a Bullards spokesman said:

"But they're saying we can't do events, we can't do soft drinks, which we are going to do because we're going to do tonics, we can't do energy drinks - not that we would ever want to do energy drinks"

What is the difference between a "soft drink", a "tonic" and an "energy drink"?

[thegreenhell]

They're completely different words. Nobody is going to confuse them.

808 Estate said:

I think I will trademark the name Green Ball for my energy drink.
"Green Ball gives you springs" (TM).

I'm going with "Blue Bell gives you dings" (TM)

[hyphen]

matchmaker said:

Evercross said:

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

Think you should read the article...a Bullards spokesman said:

"But they're saying we can't do events, we can't do soft drinks, which we are going to do because we're going to do tonics, we can't do energy drinks - not that we would ever want to do energy drinks"

Bollards have made an application for trademark. Red Bull opposes it.

Why is this even news? The trademark people will make a decision.

Red Bull like other corporates will have lawyers monitoring trademark applications and firing off letters of opposition at anything remotely a threat. Its just want corporates do. If they playing dirty in anyway then would be another story.

"Don't hate the players, hate the game"

Edited by hyphen on Saturday 18th September 14:39

[Evercross]

hyphen said:

matchmaker said:

Evercross said:

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

Think you should read the article...a Bullards spokesman said:

"But they're saying we can't do events, we can't do soft drinks, which we are going to do because we're going to do tonics, we can't do energy drinks - not that we would ever want to do energy drinks"

Bullards have made an application for trademark. Red Bull opposes it.

Why is this even news? The trademark people will make a decision.

Red Bull like other corporates will have lawyers monitoring trademark applications and firing off letters of opposition at anything remotely a threat. Its just want corporates do. If they playing dirty in anyway then would be another story.

"Don't hate the players, hate the game"

Exactly that. Interesting though that the Bullards spokesperson has admitted that they want to do tonics (which is the soft drink part of the application), mentioned events but not said either way if that is their intention, and denied wanting to make energy drinks despite the trademark application including them.

Looks to me like a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction from Red Bull to get some publicity for their brand (which I had never heard of before this) on the back of an application to open their market somewhat but not as much as the application originally states.

Edited by Evercross on Saturday 18th September 16:47

[thegreenhell]

Ah yes, tonics, that well known alternative to Red Bull...

Obviously Bullards are going to be making the most of this free publicity, but no right-minded person will see this as anything but what it is from Red Bull.

[johnboy1975]

voram said:

Evercross said:

Try reading the article before portraying the story as the underdog against the big boy. Bullards is a gin brand and Red Bull are not protesting that or asking them to stop using it. What they are objecting to is an application by Bullards to extend their trademark to cover energy drinks, soft drinks and events - three things they've never traded in before and Red Bull have established international recognition for.

^^^ This. Any big brand owner needs to keep an eagle eye out for people encroaching into their business territory.

Even people like Lolo Ferrari (banned from trying to market a line of underwear) and Thomas Dolby (court decided that Dolby Labs had no right to restrict the musician from using the name as a musician although he agreed not to use it for electronic instruments) can find themselves in the firing line.

So because Red Bull got there first, Bullards are not allowed to make or market energy drinks? (But everyone else without a Bull in their name can (continue) to do so?)

[FourWheelDrift]

g3org3y said:

Bullst!

They'll get you for that. You have to say "Overpriced taurine based non-alcoholic but dangerously addictive st"

[Evercross]

thegreenhell said:

Ah yes, tonics, that well known alternative to Red Bull...

Obviously Bullards are going to be making the most of this free publicity, but no right-minded person will see this as anything but what it is from Red Bull.

Always the big boy that's at fault.

I'll ask again - why did Bullards file a trademark application for energy drinks then when the story breaks in the news say they have no intention of making them?

Again I say, deliberate provocation to gain publicity off the back of another brand that they knew would be obliged to react. It doesn't matter if you would confuse the two brands or not because as has already been said this wasn't an attempt by Red Bull to take Bullards' TM away from them for an established product (which is how many people are interpreting this).

johnboy1975 said:

So because Red Bull got there first, Bullards are not allowed to make or market energy drinks? (But everyone else without a Bull in their name can (continue) to do so?)

I'm thinking of changing my nick to johnboy_1975 incidentally......

[georgeyboy12345]

Red bull - horrible company, horrible product, horrible owner, horrible F1 team.

[Trophy Husband]

georgeyboy12345 said:

Red bull - horrible company, horrible product, horrible owner, horrible F1 team.

Indeed. Plus a stolen product to kick it off!