Source: BBC News

In the UK, Austrian energy drink giant Red Bull opposed the registration of a gin brand named Bullards, arguing that there was a strong likelihood of confusion, so the consumer could be misled because both brands include the term ‘Bull’.

In addition to formally opposing ‘Bullards’, Red Bull sent a letter asking the gin maker to remove a number of products and services from its trademark application. That includedenergy drinks, events and soft drinks.

However, Bullards refused to do so, objecting to being prevented from using its brand in connection with events or soft drinks, as well as the production of tonics to complement its gin.

Under this scenario, a couple of days ago, the British Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejected the request of the Austrian group of fizzers that Bullards, with a dozen employees, should exclude goods and services, due to the risk of confusion.

It should be noted that Bullards was founded in 1837 by Richard Bullard and expanded during six generations, while Red Bull was founded in the 1980s in Austria. For this reason, the ruling issued rejected the affirmation by Red Bull, which assured that Bullards had chosen its name especially to take advantage of the name and fame of the Austrian giant.

Family shareholder John Bullard commented: “This ruling should serve as a reminder that businesses can and should, take on large corporations in an aggressive and heavy-handed landscape.”

It is not the first time that the Red Bull legal team launches similar legal resources against medium or small companies, an example of this are the accusations made by the company in 2013, against a Norwich brewery that operated under the name ‘Redwell’.

It is important to note that while brand owners need to take proactive steps to protect their intellectual property rights, there is also a need to strike a careful balance that upholds the good reputation of the brand while avoiding unnecessary controversy.