Skip to main content

Back

Reputation Wins: Red Bull Prevails in Trade Mark Opposition Against ‘SeaBull’ in Australia

By Samantha Ludemann | Associate

Red Bull has flexed its ‘wings’, successfully preventing a Chinese beverage company from trade marking ‘SeaBull’ for non-alcoholic drinks in a recent IP Australia opposition decision.  

In contrast to our last article on On Clouds GmbH v. Cyclonic, Inc., where the major Swiss sportswear brand On Cloud’s strong reputation and prior use ultimately fell short against a lesser-known brand in an opposition regarding similar trade marks. 

The decision, made by IP Australia delegate Timothy Brown in Red Bull GmbH v Shandong Fokun Investment Co., Ltd [2025] ATMO 104 (5 June 2025), highlights how a well-established brand identity and reputation, like Red Bull’s, can outweigh the presence of a differentiating suffix. 

Background of the Dispute  

The matter concerned an application by a Chinese company to register ‘SeaBull’ as a trade mark for non-alcoholic beverages.  As asserted by the Applicant, the term ‘Sea’ in the trade mark refers to the extract used in the beverage, which is sourced from marine organisms. The term ‘Bull’ was chosen because it symbolises strength in Chinese culture. 

Red Bull opposed the application under Section 44 and Section 60 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), arguing that “SeaBull” was too similar to its own trade mark “RED BULL”. 

Red Bull contended that the resemblance between the two marks, both visually and phonetically, could lead to consumer confusion, particularly as both brands would exist in the same product category in Australia. 

Judgement  

The matter was considered by Delegate Timothy Brown. The delegate determined that the presence of the prefix ‘Sea’ did not sufficiently distinguish the applied-for mark from Red Bull’s, given the shared use of ‘Bull’. 

In addition, the delegate found that this similarity extended to the trade marks conceptually, stating at paragraph [34]: 

“At best, ‘SeaBull’ may indicate some variation of a bull, or, more literally, a bull from the sea. However, the idea of the Trade Mark remains strongly linked to the concept of a bull. In my view, the word ‘Bull’ when incorporated within the Trade Mark largely retains its identity as an essential feature within the Trade Mark.” 

This presents an interesting comparison to On Clouds GmbH v Cyclonic, Inc where Delegate Anne Makrigioros found that despite superficial similarities between ‘CYCLON’ (On Clouds GmbH) and ‘CYCLONIC’ (Cyclonic, Inc.), there was no real likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. 

The added suffix ‘IC’ created a distinct impression, and consumers of clothing and footwear are not impulsive and brand-conscious, and unlikely to confuse the two trade marks. 

In contrast, the addition of the prefix ‘Sea’ to the word ‘Bull’ was not considered sufficient to create a distinct impression. The decision emphasised that the similarities between “SeaBull” and “Red Bull,” particularly the dominant shared element “Bull,” were significant enough that ordinary consumers could mistakenly believe the products were related or originated from the same company. 

Consumers of energy drinks were found to be more likely to associate the applied-for mark with Red Bull due to the shared dominant element ‘Bull’. 

Ultimately, the delegate found that while the mark “SeaBull” might conceptually suggest something related to aquatic life, it does not create a clear or distinct idea that meaningfully departs from the ordinary understanding of the word “Bull.” The dominant element “Bull” remains the essential feature of the mark, which strongly links it to the opponent’s well-known “Red Bull” mark. As a result, the marks were deemed deceptively similar, creating a real risk of consumer confusion. 

Given that the applicant did not provide evidence of honest concurrent use or any other factors to counter the opposition under section 44 and regulation 4.15A, the delegate was satisfied that the opposition grounds were established. Consequently, the registration of “SeaBull” was refused. 

If you require assistance with registering your own trade mark or navigating potential conflicts, contact XVII Degrees for a complimentary consultation.  

More Insights 

References 

Photo by Geronimo Giqueaux on Unsplash

Share:

See More Posts