From a glance, it would seem that Red Bull's marketing strategy is the more effective one, given that it helped the brand gain both a bigger fanbase and increased engagement. A majority of people read it as a clever bit of branding, one indicating the energy drink’s high caffeine content, and leave it at that. Pepsi defended its use of the tagline as being descriptive of their product and not as a trademark and further stated that they had obtained registration for the brand name “STING”, under which their drink was sold. Moreover, every single video posted on a specific platform is very well adapted to that specific network's audience and style. As a result, when the iPad was launched, the mark was still in the ownership of the Chinese subsidiary.

Just like with Instagram Reels, Red Bull quickly started integrating YouTube Shorts into its short-video content plan quickly after the feature's launch. Good examples of this approach may be found in the car manufacturers Dongfeng/Citroën and Huachen/BMW.Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously. Consequently, from 1998 onwards, the two companies, GPH and JDB, were producing the same product using the same trademark, WANG LAO JI, but were selling the tea in very different containers: the green container and the red can. PS: To see what’s the average engagement rate on TikTok for different industries, check out our social media industry benchmarks study! The Guangdong High Court referred the case to the SPC, proposing that the Guangzhou Intermediate Court hear the two cases together. In reality, studies have shown it's no more effective than coffee or other caffeine-containing drinks.

This is what the company officially stated -- "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. Also, just so you know, the founders are among the top two richest persons of their respective countries. However, this is what the SPC decided in its Wang Lao Ji decision to allow the ex-trademark licensee to continue using the same packaging but with a different trademark – an unsatisfactory outcome for both sides. Further, since the impugned tagline of the defendant PepsiCo was also used in a descriptive or laudatory manner comprising of four words of the English language that intended to describe the features and quality of the drink, and not as a trademark, no case of infringement could be made out in terms of the provisions of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India.The lawsuit was built upon the premise that “drinking Red Bull does not give you ‘wings’ or result in improved performance. Throughout the brand’s many years of existence, through all its marketing and communication endeavors, Red Bull tried to position itself as a visionary, fresh and energetic brand. The case was complicated by the fact that the trademark licence was signed in the context of a joint venture agreement. Red Bull is in it to win it when it comes to getting the brand's targeted audience's attention by capitalizing on all the major video networks' viewership potential. Red Bull states that a 250ml can of its energy drink contains about 80mg of Caffeine, the same amount as contained in a cup of coffee.