In both cases, when the trademark licence agreement was terminated, the licensees argued that they should have the right to continue using the trademark, since they had contributed to the value of the business in China throughout the duration of the contract. Both the Guangdong High Court in the Wang Lao Ji case, and the Beijing High Court and the SPC in the Red Bull case, gave the same reasoning: the goodwill attached to the trademark, which may have considerably increased through the implementation of the licence agreement, cannot be separated from the ownership of the trademark.

Canadian Michael Attar filed the suit in March 2016, claiming Red Bull made false declarations regarding the usefulness of its products. By the way, Red Bull wasn't the only brand that was dragged to the court in such a false advertisement case.

Judging by the numbers, it seems that in TikTok's case as well, Red Bull's marketing strategy has the upper hand against Monster Energy's from multiple KPI perspectives, from generating more engagement and plays to a higher following. If you're curious about how you can equally get your competitor's social media data just as easily, let me walk you through the steps I took when doing this competitive analysis using Socialinsider. In a legal letter to Bullards, Red Bull said it was "prepared to resolve this dispute" if Bullards deleted a series of goods and services from its trademark application and registration, including energy drinks, events and non-alcoholic beverages.

On TikTok, Red Bull’s current strategy generates not only incredible view rates and a gigantic number of followers but also an engagement rate of 10. Hotjar sets this cookie to know whether a user is included in the data sampling defined by the site's daily session limit. As noted by Daily Hive, the suit was largely a replica of another successful class-action suit against Red Bull, filed in the U.In the case of the Canadian lawsuit, it’s probably worth noting that the plaintiff “originally tried to receive compensation from the U. 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. Relying on the terms of the 1995 joint venture agreement, it claimed that the trademark had been transferred to the joint venture.