Red Bull Energy Drink 250 ml x 24

Product Information

The Red Bull case confirms the principle that the goodwill attached to a trademark cannot be separated from the trademark right, and that, at the end of a licence, no compensation is due to the licensee.

Therefore, it was apparent that no confusion or deception would be caused to the consumers of the respective products and consequently, no case of passing off could be made out. Moreover, every single video posted on a specific platform is very well adapted to that specific network's audience and style. You'll feel more awake and less tired, so it's a common ingredient in medications to treat or manage drowsiness, headaches, and migraines. With such a 360 video content strategy, Red Bull is sure to get on the radar of every platform's audience, gaining huge visibility.

Canadian Michael Attar filed the suit in March 2016, claiming Red Bull made false declarations regarding the usefulness of its products. In the Red Bull case, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) stated that the goodwill could not be separated from the trademark right itself, and Red Bull China, the licensee, was therefore not entitled to claim any ownership on the value acquired by the trademarks.

The SPC observed that the goodwill built on the trademarks could be separated from the trademark right itself and, therefore, Red Bull China was not entitled to claim any ownership on the value acquired by the trademarks, even if such value had been generated through the joint venture. PepsiCo managed to successfully ward off the injunction sting in Red Bull’s trademark case and even argued that the registration of Red Bull’s tagline “VITALIZES BODY AND MIND” was in contravention of Section 9 of the statute in India. The Guangzhou Intermediate Court, aware of the other case in Beijing, reported to the Guangdong High Court to seek guidance. This data is logged in pseudonymised form, unless a visitor provides us with their personal data through creating a profile, such as when signing up for events or for downloading information that is not available to the public. Available options to perfectly fit iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro Max, iPhone 15 Plus, iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Pro, iPhone 14 Pro Max, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 13, iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 13 mini, iPhone 13 Pro Max, iPhone 12, iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 Pro Max, iPhone SE (2020), iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone X, iPhone XR, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone 7, Galaxy S23, Galaxy S23+, Galaxy S23 Ultra, Galaxy S21, Galaxy S21+, Galaxy S21 Ultra, Galaxy S20, Galaxy S20+, Galaxy S20 Ultra, Galaxy S10, Galaxy S10e, Galaxy S10 Plus, Galaxy S9, Galaxy S9+, Galaxy S8, Galaxy S8+ and more.

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," he said. This is what the company officially stated -- "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. Saying you’d be given to portray Red Bull’s brand personality using only three characteristic traits. Red Bull suffered defeat in a recent trademark case before the Delhi High Court when they attempted to seek an injunction against PepsiCo India and its energy drink “STING” for alleged infringement and passing off.

In the Red Bull case, the licensee claimed a large amount of damages, trying to base its claim on vague language in the joint venture agreement, but mainly building its argument around its investment in the development of the brand and the unfairness of not obtaining a retribution. So he filed his own lawsuit, citing studies debunking the purported benefits of taurine, a chemical in many energy drinks. The SPC concluded that the litigious packaging did in fact combine the brand awareness of Wang Lao Ji and the reputation and distinctive features acquired by JDB.

The lawsuit was built upon the premise that “drinking Red Bull does not give you ‘wings’ or result in improved performance. A majority of people read it as a clever bit of branding, one indicating the energy drink’s high caffeine content, and leave it at that. However, this is what the SPC decided in its Wang Lao Ji decision to allow the ex-trademark licensee to continue using the same packaging but with a different trademark – an unsatisfactory outcome for both sides. Red Bull China also described its efforts to establish the reputation of the brand in China and argued that it would be unfair to let Tencel reap the benefits of these efforts.