• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

CFI and FLÜGEL/ WINGS: Red Bull wins!

29. April 2021

The dispute over similarity and likelihood of confusion between the more recent EU trade mark registration of the word mark FLÜGEL (in engl: WINGS) and the older word mark VERLEIHT FLÜGEL by Red Bull has a new chapter: Red Bull won before the CFI – with reference to Free riding on its reputation.

Red Bull Marke VERLEIHT FLÜGEL

The dispute about similarity and likelihood of confusion between the more recent EU trade mark registration of the word mark FLÜGEL and the older, national word marks VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜGEL has been dragging on in stages through the courts for 10 years.

Red Bull GmbH (Austria) referred to the reputation of the Red Bull trade marks and therefore sued for likelihood of confusion due to the trade mark application FLÜGEL (applied for on 24 September 1997 by Asolo LTD (Cyprus) and also for damage to its own reputation (declaration of invalidity on the basis of Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009). This is because the word sign FLÜGEL was registered as an EU trade mark in Nice classes 32 and 33 (beers, drinks, fruit drinks); in contrast, Red Bull’s two earlier national trade marks are registered for “energy drinks” (Nice class 32).

Already in 2018, this case was heard before the European Court of Justice (CFI) – we reported. In March 2019, this case was then decided again before the Board of Appeal, to which it had been referred back in 2018. Once again, it granted Red Bull’s application for a declaration of invalidity, whereupon applicant Asolo Ltd brought another action before the CFI. This has now been decided (EU:T:2021:225).

Reputation of the trademark VERLEIHT FLÜGEL

When examining the reputation of a mark, the following circumstances in particular must be taken into account, the CFI explained: the market share held by the earlier mark; the intensity, geographical spread and duration of use of the mark; and the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark. However, it is by no means necessary to prove that the mark is known to a certain percentage of the relevant public, the court added. Nor does the reputation have to extend to the entire territory concerned, as long as that reputation exists in a substantial part of that territory.

Evidence of Red Bull awareness and reputation

Red Bull had submitted as evidence two awareness surveys conducted in 1997 and 2010, as well as a sworn statement by Red Bull’s general counsel.

The CFI confirmed that the surveys were an appropriate means of proof, that they were conducted by an independent and reputable company on a representative sample in Austria and that they did not contain any suggestive questions. However, the 2010 survey could not be taken into account, as the Board of Appeal had done.

In principle, the reputation must be proven and established for the time of the application for the contested mark – in this case for September 1997. Documents with a later date can also be taken into account, the CFI explained, especially if they allow conclusions to be drawn about the situation at that time – but not through a survey conducted so many years later. On this point, the CFI found in favour of the plaintiff, but this had no influence on the overall decision.

Red Bull trade mark VERLEIHT FLÜGEL basically a slogan

The applicant also claimed that the earlier mark was a slogan and therefore lacked the distinctive character required for a valid trade mark. But the CFI rejected this. The same criteria must be applied to the assessment of the distinctiveness of a slogan as for all other trade marks, the court explained. Moreover, the validity of a national trade mark could not be called into question in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trademark, but only in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity in the Member State concerned. For that reason alone, the earlier Red Bull mark must be recognised as having a certain distinctive character.

Free riding on reputation of Red Bull

The applicant also challenged the finding that it had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the Red Bull mark – but in vain. The CFI explained that, according to the case-law, the concept of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier mark – “parasitism” or “free-riding” – concerns the exploitation of the use of not only an identical but also a similar challenged mark. It includes, in particular, cases in which there is a transfer of the image of the mark with a reputation or of the characteristics which it projects onto the goods designated by the contested mark.

That was precisely the case in the present case; no one would assume that one could actually fly if one drank the drinks of the said marks. In vain, the applicant argued that the earlier trademark Red Bull does not refer to the concept of a wing, but consists of a metaphor according to which the drink Red Bull lifts you up into the air. Instead, the CFI stated that the term flying for the goods in question is perceived in a figurative sense and is used as a metaphor that the drinks give someone a feeling of lightness, energy or even joy and positivity.

Proximity between the goods

Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that there was a degree of similarity between the marks and, accordingly, a likelihood of confusion – in relation to all the goods claimed by the contested mark FLÜGEL. The CFI emphasised that, without disregarding the ratio decidendi of the judgment of 4 October 2018, FLÜGEL (T-150/17, EU:T:2018:641), the Board of Appeal had rightly found that there was a proximity between the goods in question. Therefore, while the finding from the 2018 judgment that an alcoholic beverage and an energy drink cannot be considered similar merely because they can be mixed, consumed or marketed together applies.

But Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94 expressly refers to the case where the goods are not similar, the court added. And it is common knowledge that energy drinks and alcoholic beverages are sold in the same supermarkets and are often listed next to each other on bar menus – ergo, there is proximity between the goods.

The case was therefore dismissed in its entirety and the damage to the reputation of Red Bull’s earlier mark was upheld.

Would you also like to protect a trade mark?

Our patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law are experienced and highly qualified in trademark law as well as in all fields of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Please contact us easily, if you are interested, and check our offer for a call-back appointment with us.

 

 

Sources: 

Judgement of CFI FLÜGEL “Red Bull 2021”, EU:T:2021:225

Image:

StockSnap | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconArt. 8(5),  Beverages,  CFI,  damage to reputation,  DISPLAY WINGS,  earlier trade mark,  earlier well-known trade mark,  energy drinks,  goods similar,  judgment,  methaphor,  Nice Class 33,  Nice-Class 32,  Proximity between the goods,  Red Bull,  Red Bull word marks,  reputation,  Slogan,  Taking unfair advantage,  Trade Mark,  Trademark,  WINGS,  word mark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.