Andrew Masson is an IPilogue Writer and 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

F1 racing has become incredibly popular lately, likely aided by Netflix’s “.” IP, design, development, and engineering are cornerstones of this sport, with teams having to design, build, and race their cars. However, the sport is not governed by the IP laws, and using patented car technology is prohibited in ”. This means that F1 must regulate itself and balance the avoidance of a monopoly on certain car designs by allowing teams to against allowing teams to outright copy or steal rival team designs. F1 is unique in having 2 championships per season, with each team having 2 drivers. One championship is for the driver that scores the most points in that season and the second championship is for the team that scores the most points —“constructors championship.” Last year, Red Bull driver Max Verstappen won the drivers’ championship, but Mercedes won the constructors championship earning their team a $50 million bonus.

IP Regulation

With large sums of prize money at stake and teams’ inability to patent the designs on which they , F1 is in a difficult position. The events that unfolded in the 2020 season precisely exemplify the importance of imposing sport-friendly IP regulation that aligns with what is legally accepted. In 2020, . Legally, this seems like an appropriate action, but this contravened the F1 regulation body FIA(International Automobile Federation)’s rules that require teams to design certain “Listed Parts” for their cars. Racing Point was deducted .

New Name, Same Concerns?

In 2021, Racing Point was when Canadian Billionaire Lawrence Stroll (father of Aston Martin racer Lance Stroll) purchased a 16.7% stake in Aston Martin. With the name change, Racing Point also replaced their iconic pink cars with a new set of green Aston Martin cars. At this season's Spanish Grand Prix, Aston Martin upgraded their car to . The designs were so similar that commentators, fans, and teams now refer to it as the “green Red Bull” (article with ). However, the FIA was in its investigation of illegal transfers of IP from Red Bull to Aston Martin.

Interestingly, at the end of last season. Red Bull’s team principal (similar to a manager or coach) Christian Horner was concerned because “, it’s what we invest millions of pounds into and you wouldn’t want to see that just turning up in a rival organization.” However, he also stated that he understands this is part of the sport and individuals change teams and “[w]hat individuals take in their head, that’s fair game and is their knowledge.”

Conclusion

Confusingly, Aston Martin would have had to be developing two entirely different cars at the same time because the changes they introduced in Spain would require to the first car they deployed this season. ��Although it’s suspicious that Aston Martin invested in the development of two cars simultaneously and one is “identical” to the Red Bull, this could have been done legally. The individuals that transferred late in development from Red Bull to Aston Martin would be well informed on Red Bull’s proposed car design for this season and F1 rules are intentionally limiting IP protection. The FIA not punishing Aston Martin ��could be seen as beneficial for the sport as it creates a more competitive field with exciting races. However, this may prompt the teams and F1 to work out a better way to protect and commercialize intellectual property.

The post IP Policy in Sports: F1 Racing Team Aston Martin Accused of Stealing Red Bull’s Car Design appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo Credit: (Unsplash.com)

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

In light of Red Bull GmbH's (Red Bull) recent in the High Court of New Delhi, I thought it would be interesting to examine the famous energy drink company’s numerous past trademark disputes. The iconic logo, which features a blue and silver background with two red bulls about to collide over a bright yellow sun, has been at the centre of controversy since the artwork was created in . Red Bull has done a great job of making sure that people do not profit from similarities in the logo and its name. Registering trademarks is helpful in many circumstances, such as preventing other businesses from profiting off of consumers mistaking their products with those of a famous brand. .

Although the dispute never went to trial, Red Bull asked a small Norfolk micro brewery, Redwell, to change its name. Threatening legal action, Red Bull told the eight-person employed brewery that their name would ruin Red Bull’s reputation. Although similar in name, Redwell says their name came from Redwell Street in Norwich. Red Bull's leading argument was that Redwell was similar to Red Bull in look and sound. Therefore, consumers could be convinced Redwell’s products belonged to Red Bull.

Redwell explained the difference in name, branding, product, and goals of the brewery. None of their objectives were in line with Red Bull’s legacy. After reaching a settlement, a spokesperson for Red Bull claimed that there was . Red Bull was willing to allow Redwell to continue to use its name so long as it was solely for beer and not energy drinks. Redwell said that it never has and never will cross over from beer to energy drinks, and therefore is happy with the private settlement.

(Photo Credit:

��

In this recent case, Red Bull sued three defendants for similarities of their Big Horn logo. The logo featured two rams about to butt heads over a yellow sun on a blue and silver can. However, when Red Bull brought the allegation against the defendants for their failure to comply with the , two of the three defendants stated that they did not see the alleged similarities.

Pursuant to Article 9(2)(c) of the EU Trade Marks Regulation, the onus was on Red Bull to prove that their logo was widely recognized. The judge in this case, ruled that Big Horn would undoubtedly profit from Red Bull's reputation and recognized label given the similarities between the two logos. The judgment also came after two of the three defendants admitted that Red Bull's logo was a popular label and that they knew about it for years. This unfair advantage would be due to "a likelihood of confusion," which is essential in establishing a trademark infringement under article 9(2)(b) of the EU Trade Marks Regulation.

(Photo Credit: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-restrains-use-red-horse-mark-trademark-suit-by-red-bull)��

Red Bull seemed to have had an advantage in this case. India’s Trade Marks Registry lists the name “Red Bull” as a well-known trademark. Moreover, the High Court of New Delhi once ruled in favour of Red Bull in . When Bakewell Biscuits released their chips “Red Horse,” described in the judgement as a "blue/silver trapezoid device and the device of two animals in charging position with a yellow backdrop/sun disk," the decision came as no surprise.

The Court found that Red Bull successfully established trademark infringement. Allowing the Red Horse logo would have enabled the defendant to profit from Red Bull's years of established goodwill. Accordingly, the Court ruled against Bakewell Biscuits’ use of the Red Horse label.

In conclusion, considering the precedents set as a result of lawsuits filed by Red Bull, designers ought to avoid combining Red Bull’s well-recognized marks in a way that would cause confusion in the average consumer’s mind. Although some companies try to get away with using Red Bull’s iconic marks, the famous energy drink company always finds a way to hold infringers accountable.

The post Recognized Around the World and in the Court Room: Red Bull v Bakewell Biscuits Private Limited appeared first on IPOsgoode.