At present, EU law and especially the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) provides wide-ranging protection of brands, which are considered as trademarks in law, covering such functions of trademarks as their use for the purposes of advertising, investment and communication with consumers. However, this approach causes controversy because it broadens the scope of trademark protection beyond the primary function of indicating the origin of goods and services and guaranteeing their quality (origin function).
In recent years scholars have criticised the current line of CJEU case-law on this issue, specifically its understanding of trademarks’ functions . As a consequence, academics have suggested rethinking the current wide scope of trademark protection in the EU, which they consider to be exaggerated, and ” push[ing] the genie back in the bottle .” They argue that trademark protection should be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function.
It seems that the CJEU has taken this critique to heart, with a recent ruling showing that the Luxembourg court may be ready to soften its position on brand protection.
The case Red Bull v de Vries
The Red Bull company filed a complaint against Hendrikus de Vries before the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdam District Court) , considering that the use of a sign could be misleading. The Red Bull company is the owner of the ‘Red Bull Krating‑Daeng’trademark for non-alcoholic drinks in the Benelux countries since 11 July 1983. Hendrikus de Vries registered the ‘ The Bulldog’trademark on 14 July 1983 and the ‘The Bulldog Energy Drink’trademark on 11 July 2000 in the Benelux countries. Furthermore, the national court declared as certain that Mr de Vries was using his trademarks for goods and services involving the sale of drinks. However, the unquestionability of Red Bull as a global brand marketing energy drinks was also affirmed, so that not just its original function but also its reputation is protected by trademark law., The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court) thus requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, asking how the EU Trademark Directive (89/104) should be interpreted. More precisely, the national court asked if a “due cause” (i.e. appropriate justification of some behaviour) could be found in the situation whereby the “Bulldog” sign was already being used in good faith by Mr de Vries before the “Red Bull” trademark was filed.
Argumentation of the CJEU
In its preliminary ruling, the CJEU stated that the concept of “due cause” must be interpreted in a way taking into account all functions of a trademark, including also those of communication, investment or advertising. However, it added that the purpose of trademark protection is to strike a balance between the interests of the trademark proprietor and the interests of other economic operators. In other words, the CJEU highlighted the protection of free competition in trademark law. In conclusion, it held that “due cause” must be interpreted subjectively and – in consequence – as one of the limitations of brand protection . This means that when Mr de Vries uses a bulldog sign for hotels and drinks and owns a trademark for this sign, he can also use it for energy drinks under three conditions. First of all, the sign and its reputation must have been accepted by the relevant public. Secondly, the degree of proximity between his and Red Bull goods must not be too high. Finally, the economic and commercial influence of such use from the point of view of Red Bull’s products must not be too significant. It is now for the national court to apply these criteria.
European Parliamentary Research Service of the European Parliament. The EPRS offers the best available research and analytical support to Members of the European Parliament, their staff, parliamentary committees and, of course, to you!
Combating corruption in the European Union
2024 European elections: National rules
Plant reproductive material [EU Legislation in Progress]
Relations ahead of the 24th EU-China summit
EU-New Zealand free trade agreement – One step closer to ratification [International Agreements in Progress][Policy Podcast]
What if the EU was energy independent? [Science and Technology Podcast]
BEFIT – Business in Europe: Framework for income taxation [EU Legislation in Progress]
Continuation of the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area [EU Legislation in Progress]
CO2 emissions of new cars and vans
Youth participation in European elections
Circularity requirements for vehicle design and management of end-of-life vehicles [EU Legislation in Progress]
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
The present website is hosted by WordPress.com, a service by Automattic. Automattic is a global company with thousands of servers located in several separate data centres around the world. While Automattic takes care of the security of the platform, we, the European Parliamentary Research Service, own the content of the blog. For more detailed information about the compliance of Automattic products and services with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), please see their dedicated page.
We do not collect any personal data that could identify an individual user. The users that are registered in WordPress.com should consult wordpress.com terms of service. We do collect anonymised aggregate data for statistical purposes. The data collected for this purposes include: number of visits/visitors per page, the country of the user, and aggregate numbers of incoming and outgoing clicks.
We determine unique page counts by using a “hashed” version of the visitor’s IP address. The visitor’s full IP address is deleted from our logs after a little over a month. That timeframe is how long the data is needed in order to allow us to calculate your stats on a monthly basis and no longer.
We collect your email address only if you proactively requested to be notified about the updates on the blog. You can always contact us to remove your email address from our records or unsubscribe from the notification service.
We can also see your name and email address if you made a comment to one of our posts. We do not make the email address visible on the comment. Nevertheless, on request, we can delete your comments.
We collect cookies only to facilitate your browsing experience, such as enabling you to share our posts via social media or comment on the post. The majority of cookies will be used only if you are a registered WordPress.com user. In this case, you are bound to WordPress.com terms of service.
Some pages embed content from third parties. In this case, you will need to actively consent to their terms in order to see the content.