Rich Energy drop Haas. No...Really. Seriously...
Discussion
LaurasOtherHalf said:
When have RE infringed on RB’s trademarks?
This advert and the #GivesYouHorns tag they used a lot on Twitter are probably close enough for the legal people to take notice. https://twitter.com/rich_energy/status/88007768964...
JonChalk said:
Now, I imagine RBs lawyers probably play in a league above Haas's...
I'm sure they're more than a match for Storey's mate from down the pub who seems to have advised him.I'm not quite sure what Red Bull gain at this point, other than adding extra publicity and humiliation. RE were no competitor and the fight with Story and everyone else is surely going to end soon, when the existing court case wipes him out and the Vin-X action tops that off. It's almost like he's pee'd off the investors (or someone) so much that they would like to see him fail miserably and publicly. There can't be any money to extract out of him.
Once HAAS have established that they aren't pulling out of any sponsorship contract I imagine the Rich Energy branding will be gone, maybe even the team title (exceptional circumstances Liberty?).
There must be a point at which this madness stops. I wonder who will write the book on this, Peter Windsor? The epilogue would be; 'don't mess with the big boys'
Edited by cookie1600 on Thursday 18th July 08:25
cookie1600 said:
JonChalk said:
Now, I imagine RBs lawyers probably play in a league above Haas's...
I'm sure they're more than a match for Storey's mate from down the pub who seems to have advised him.I'm not quite sure what Red Bull gain at this point, other than adding extra publicity and humiliation. RE were no competitor and the fight with Story and everyone else is surely going to end soon, when the existing court case wipes him out and the Vin-X action tops that off. It's almost like he's pee'd off the investors (or someone) so much that they would like to see him fail miserably and publicly. There can't be any money to extract out of him.
Once HAAS have established that they aren't pulling out of any sponsorship contract I imagine the Rich Energy branding will be gone, maybe even the team title (exceptional circumstances Liberty?).
There must be a point at which this madness stops. I wonder who will write the book on this, Peter Windsor? The epilogue would be; 'don't mess with the big boys'
Edited by cookie1600 on Thursday 18th July 08:25
RE have made themselves an easy target.
My gut is that RE have been just on the right side of cheeky, but RB may have better advocates (who can point to a pattern of infringing behaviour as context).
Brand protection can often look like a sledgehammer - shock and awe is tactically deployed to scare others into submission.
Thesprucegoose said:
I wondered what he was doing after Trainspotting.
FourWheelDrift said:
It still looks like Storey is in control of that Twitter account and talking about himself in the 3rd person.
Airing your dirty washing like that on social media is commercial suicide and one can only imagine Storey is tweeting through a drunken haze, realising his end is nigh. Does he physically have to turn up at either or both courts today to face Whyte and Vin-X?With those court cases now queuing up and creditors probably baying for blood, he is personally named on all the documentation that I've seen so he can't hide behind a limited company. Also acknowledging he is the personal guarantor for £35million for the HAAS deal is madness as if it was that he defaulted, the real investors will just leave him out to dry. He's amused them for a short while, now he's a liability and the whole energy drink escapade should probably be firmly locked away under 'do not open for 100 years'. Can you imagine Storey presenting this lot on Dragons Den?
To quote Big Chris, 'its been emotional'
The 27 Old Gloucester Street address used by The BDG Group is simply a registered office address and a fancy rented mail box; as other have said, its lack of presence on the Companies House website is due to the fact that it is not a limited company. There is not really any risk to the owner(s) of the BDG Group as Mr Kell is appointed a director of the limited company he seeks to 'sort out' and BDG have no legal interest in the companies they are rescuing/driving into the ground/offloading liabilities for [delete as applicable].
I have dealt with other companies that have used this address, including once that 'accidentally' gave the wrong postcode at Companies House. A simple 'mistake' that means when checking the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines they will not appear as a hit.
Another classic registered office address in London is 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PY. There are plenty of legitimate companies that use this address but, personally, if I see that I am always minded to exercise greater care and carry out further due diligence.
I have dealt with other companies that have used this address, including once that 'accidentally' gave the wrong postcode at Companies House. A simple 'mistake' that means when checking the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines they will not appear as a hit.
Another classic registered office address in London is 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PY. There are plenty of legitimate companies that use this address but, personally, if I see that I am always minded to exercise greater care and carry out further due diligence.
Europa1 said:
Haas aren't the ones being taken to Court.
In any event, Haas' lawyer used to be a partner in Macfarlanes' sports law team, so he's probably pretty good.
My point being that if RE though they could give Haas a legal runaround, RBs legal team (as function of a multi-billion pound company used to dealing with infringement cases, will be a cut above a Haas operation - CNCcompany an order of magnitude smaller and much less publicly viable) is unlikely to be as forgiving or amenable to REs sIn any event, Haas' lawyer used to be a partner in Macfarlanes' sports law team, so he's probably pretty good.
t. JonChalk said:
My point being that if RE though they could give Haas a legal runaround, RBs legal team (as function of a multi-billion pound company used to dealing with infringement cases, will be a cut above a Haas operation - CNCcompany an order of magnitude smaller and much less publicly viable) is unlikely to be as forgiving or amenable to REs st.
When you get talking about companies with revenues in billons it's all much of a muchness. Haas can afford lawyers every bit as good as Red Bull could if they needed to.t. Kraken said:
When you get talking about companies with revenues in billions it's all much of a muchness. Haas can afford lawyers every bit as good as Red Bull could if they needed to.
But probably don't deploy them as often and as aggressively on IP and infringement issues. They may even have a team constantly residing in Red Bull Towers just to send packing chancers like Billy-Bob Storey. Talking of which, when is he up before the beak today?
cookie1600 said:
But probably don't deploy them as often and as aggressively on IP and infringement issues. They may even have a team constantly residing in Red Bull Towers just to send packing chancers like Billy-Bob Storey.
Very much so! I've heard red lights and alarms flash at RB HQ if anyone so much as prints a RB logo without going through them first.....If RichEnergy even thought about using a bull shaped animal in their logo, people would have gone missing in the night.
skwdenyer said:
What do they gain? “Pour encourager les autres” - they’re not worried by RE, but they don’t want to encourage the floodgates.
RE have made themselves an easy target.
My gut is that RE have been just on the right side of cheeky, but RB may have better advocates (who can point to a pattern of infringing behaviour as context).
Brand protection can often look like a sledgehammer - shock and awe is tactically deployed to scare others into submission.
I think that's basically it. In my previous company we had an objection filed againt a trademark application entirely spuriously at first glance by a multi billion dollar retailer. Our lawyers basically said it was an excercise in brand protection. We had to make a barter agreement with them to drop the objection. They didn't care about us, they just wanted evidence they were protecting their own trademark. RE have made themselves an easy target.
My gut is that RE have been just on the right side of cheeky, but RB may have better advocates (who can point to a pattern of infringing behaviour as context).
Brand protection can often look like a sledgehammer - shock and awe is tactically deployed to scare others into submission.
Of course we didn't have any choice as their lawyers could have destroyed us easily in a war of attrition, but that's not the point.
As a bit of an indication to the lengths Red Bull have gone to in the past, a chap repainted a old slot car (not Scalextric but similar) into red bull livery. A fantasy livery, but accurate in terms of logos.
He then tried to sell it on eBay listed as a "red bull such and such" (i think it was a Ferrari)
He said to me that within 24 hours he had a legal email from Red Bull asking him, politely but very firmly, to remove it. As he had no right to use their IP.
They take it rather seriously it seems!
He then tried to sell it on eBay listed as a "red bull such and such" (i think it was a Ferrari)
He said to me that within 24 hours he had a legal email from Red Bull asking him, politely but very firmly, to remove it. As he had no right to use their IP.
They take it rather seriously it seems!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff