Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
4 April 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr J MacGillivray
32, 33
TBI The Bay Investment Co Ltd
Red Bull GmbH
Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4)(a) & 56


Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Section 56: - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks HEREFORD BULL v RED BULL, and the marks HEREFORD BULL v BULL


The opposition was based on the opponents’ marks RED BULL and other BULL marks. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer selected the opponents’ RED BULL registrations and a CTM registration of BULL. He found that the opponents’ marks were distinctive and they had a reputation in them. Nevertheless, he considered that the HEREFORD element in the applicants’ mark established a difference that made confusion unlikely. The Section 5(2)(b) objection failed.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer considered that the opponents’ had no better a case than they had under Section 5(2).

The Section 5(4)(a) objection also failed, and the absence of any likelihood of confusion decided the matter under Section 56 also.

The allegation of bad faith under Section 3(6) was not upheld.

Full decision O/155/02 PDF document36Kb