Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd: energy drink copycat found liable for trademark infringement
Red BullvBig Horn UK
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 30 January 2020
- Citation
- [2020] EWHC 124 (Ch)
Copying the look and feel of a famous brand can count as infringement even without proof that customers were actually confused.
Red Bull took on Big Horn UK Ltd and its director over energy drinks sold with ram logos that closely echoed Red Bull's famous bull marks. Red Bull won, with the court finding Big Horn had unfairly benefited from Red Bull's reputation.
What happened
Red Bull sued Big Horn UK Ltd and its sole director over energy drinks and water sold under the "Big Horn" name. The cans featured double and single ram devices and a blue and silver parallelogram design, closely resembling Red Bull's registered double bull, single bull and parallelogram trademarks. The cans were a similar shape to Red Bull's, and the products were often displayed next to Red Bull drinks in shops and on social media. Red Bull argued this was a deliberate attempt to echo its branding and cash in on its reputation.
What did the court decide in Red Bull v Big Horn UK?
The court found that although the Big Horn signs were not identical to Red Bull's trademarks, they were visually and conceptually similar enough, combined with Red Bull's strong global reputation, that Big Horn's use took unfair advantage of that reputation. This meant infringement was established under the provision covering marks with a reputation. The judge found this was free-riding rather than genuine customer confusion, so the separate claim based on likelihood of confusion was not made out, though the judge addressed it anyway. The director was held personally liable as a joint tortfeasor because the director controlled and directed the company's conduct.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a business doesn't need to prove shoppers were actually fooled to win a trademark case against a copycat. Showing that a rival deliberately echoed a famous name, logo or tagline to borrow its reputation can be enough on its own.
- Directors who personally control a company's branding decisions can be held liable alongside the company itself, not just the company.
- Famous brands with a strong reputation get wider protection than ordinary marks, covering use that evokes them even where confusion seems unlikely.
- Displaying a copycat product next to the genuine brand in shops or on social media can count as evidence of an intention to ride on its reputation.
Things to be aware of
- The finding on likelihood of confusion was not the basis of the decision since the case was won on the reputation ground, and the court actually found no likelihood of confusion despite the similarity of signs and goods.
- This case turned on Red Bull's exceptionally strong global reputation, which may not be available to smaller or less well known brand owners facing similar copying.
The businesses involved
Red Bull GmbH
Company that produces and markets Red Bull energy drinks worldwide, and holder of the registered bull-device and parallelogram trademarks at issue in this case.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Big Horn UK Ltd
Registered in England in May 2017 to wholesale fruit and vegetable juices, mineral water and soft drinks. It sold energy drinks and water under the 'Big Horn' brand before being dissolved in January 2021. Companies House records show no trademarks held on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 10763529 Dissolved
- Incorporated
- May 2017
- Note
- Ceased January 2021
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Wholesale of fruit and vegetable juices, mineral water and soft drinks
- UK trademarks
- 0
What happened next
- The claim was brought against three defendants: Big Horn UK Ltd, its director, and a company based outside the UK linked to the same products.Source: 11Southsquare
- Commentary noted the ruling involved three of Red Bull's registered EU trademarks and that the director was held liable as a joint tortfeasor.Source: IPKat, February 2020
What others said about it
- Wolters Kluwer's Trademark Blog treated the case as a useful illustration of the different legal routes available to rights holders facing copycat branding.Source: Legalblogs, April 2020
- CITMA's Charlotte Wilding reported free-riding was evident on the facts, framing the case as a clear example of a business benefiting from another's reputation without permission.Source: Citma, April 2020
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2020] EWHC 124 (Ch) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
