Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1929 (Ch) (17 July 2012)

Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1929 (Ch) (17 July 2012)

The Defendants' use of BULLET for energy drinks infringed Red Bull's BULLIT marks due to high similarity and likelihood of confusion. The use of NO BULL IN THIS CAN infringed RED BULL's CTM by taking unfair advantage of its reputation. The Defendants failed to prove Red Bull acted in bad faith when registering BULLIT marks; Red Bull had a genuine intention to use.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1929 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Red Bull GmbH; Defendant: Sun Mark Limited; Defendant: Sea Air & Land Forwarding Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Infringement and Invalidity / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed, counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Bad Faith Registration, Likelihood of Confusion, Reputation and Unfair Advantage, Invalidity of Trade Marks
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Mark Infringement Bad Faith Registration Likelihood of Confusion Reputation and Unfair Advantage Invalidity of Trade Marks

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Bull GmbH

Claimant

Sun Mark Limited

Defendant

Sea Air & Land Forwarding Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Trade Mark Infringement and Invalidity / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants infringed Red Bull's registered trade marks by use of BULLET and NO BULL IN THIS CAN
  2. 2 Whether Red Bull's BULLIT registrations were obtained in bad faith due to lack of genuine intention to use

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' use of BULLET for energy drinks infringed Red Bull's BULLIT marks due to high similarity and likelihood of confusion. The use of NO BULL IN THIS CAN infringed RED BULL's CTM by taking unfair advantage of its reputation. The Defendants failed to prove Red Bull acted in bad faith when registering BULLIT marks; Red Bull had a genuine intention to use.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed, counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from infringing Red Bull's BULLIT and RED BULL marks by use of BULLET and NO BULL IN THIS CAN
  • Declarations of validity for IR 389 and IR 548