If I had a bar I would throw RB out in the garbage. For 30 years people have been walking up to bars around the country and saying "Give me a Jack and Coke" was it always Coke that was and is being served NO! Several accounts of mine have received letters aka WARNINGS not to sell products that look like and taste like RB and not tell customers "OH this is not RB it is a knock off!" Give me a break! Throw RB in the toilet where it belongs....... sueing bar owners???

This has already been a discustion point in the past. Coke does it, Pepsi does it, and so does Red Bull. Part of the issues is that if the word Coke means a soda everywere, or Red Bull and vodka means just an energy drink and vodka then they could loose their trademark, just like kleenex and thermos. Secondly, they don't want their names used to promote another product. As a busnies person, it would not be the smartest thing to not carry Red Bull. I would carry Red Bull if I owned a bar. I just wouldnt promote it as much.

Energydude,

How about some context for you. Let's say Sum Poosie becomes the most requested energy drink in your area. So much so that Red Bull is soon forgotten. Now what would you do as a brand, if someone came out with a bag in the box energy drink that was pink in color, smelled and tasted like Sum Poosie, but was called Bad Kitty and it was much cheaper than your product. Then all of these bars that you had worked your tail off to get into and support, turned around and sold this product instead but called it Sum Poosie. (Believe me, it would happen quicker than you could post to complain about it)

If you were smart, you would do the exact same thing Red Bull is doing and protect your brand and your trademark. Otherwise, you would be out of business very quickly.

Also, for your information, do your homework, Coke and Pepsi have done the exact same thing to protect their brands. Look up a case in Nevada from Nov/1981 Coca-Cola Vs. the Topaz Lodge and Casino alleging consumers requesting Coke products and being passed off generic brands instead. Coke won that one and many others.

CR

[ 02-12-2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Coco Rico ]

First of all Coco I am very familiar with Coke and how they have "attempted" to protect their brand in the 1980's. At that time I owned several clubs and threw their product into the street because of a disagreement. Isn't Pepsi just a copy of Coke? I have no problem with someone making Bad Kitty and trying to duplicate my taste. Trying to copy the product is flattery and is done all the time. But to sue club owners who helped put them on the map????? Sorry wrong dead wrong. I a club owner can find an alternative that is less expensive than so be it.
SumPoosie combines great packaging with great taste to copy it is nearly impossible the images on the bottle are copywritten. My main point is sue the companies making the product if they are somehow doing something wrong not the bars that have supported RB. RB police no thanks. By the Aspartame in Diet RB?????? Who's idea was that?

What if you pay $80,000 for a BMW, and all you really get is a KIA worth no more than $14,000. Same sort of deal. You ask for something, you should get it. I drink Diet Coke and hate when I get Diet Pepsi. 8 out of 10 they tell me if they don't have Coke, and I appreciate it. No one is saying you can't buy any drink you want as an owner, you just can't pass of what ever you want as the product. What if your bottler filled your bottles with another product, but told you it was Sum Poosie? I don't think you would be happy about it, and if it ruined your busines, you would sue in a second. Now, think about a $20,000,000+ company that wants to protect their rights. I think it sucks that a bar or store would get sued, but that is the way it works.

Sue the company producing the so called bogus product, not the bar owner. If I need a Q-tip to get something out of my ear and I am handed a cotton swap by another manufacturer ..... who cares? People say RB sometimes because they really just want some energy with their vodka. Few people complain if given a substitute because who drinks RB for the taste? Bar owners are tired of getting pushed around by RB. How many clubs in the country have so called exclusive deals with RB?????? What is up with RB and these so called exclusive contracts.......? Sounds a lot like restrict of trade.

Energydude you have just said why RB is suing people.

"People say RB sometimes because they really just want some energy with their vodka"

Why should any company spend millions to advertise their brand when any other brand can reap the benefits.

Simply put, I own a bar, I am asked for a RB and Vodka, I say "sorry but I do not sell RB, I sell Xtrem, would you like that instead?". This way at least I am not misleading my customer into believing he is drinking RB.

Energydude, if you leave your discution at RB sueing bars sucks, then hey, I don't think anyone will have anything to argue about there. But there are many people who do drink Red Bull for the taste (I am definatly not one of them). I don't see anyone here saying that McDonnalds or BK or any big food chain is full of crap because they have a Coke only or Pepsi only contract. I hate the taste of Red Bull and about 75% of the other energy drinks. But once ever other year I am forced to buy a couple Red Bulls. Why? The gluecronolactones in it. If I have a hang over or know I will be getting one, I will down 2 Red Bulls (along with V-8)so the gluecronolactones will help to flush out all the alcohal impurites that are in my body. Now if I have to order a Red Bull, and am given something else, that sucks. Now I just had to choke down some crap that won't do anything for me. But thats just my senario. It just breaks down to Red Bull protecting their name for trademark reasons, and customers getting what they order, plain and simple.

It's kind of funny.... on one hand RB pays clubs to keep others out (RESTRICT OF TRADE) and on the other bullies them if they try to please the other 9 out of 10 people in the bar who will not drink RB.

I have no problem with someone making Bad Kitty and trying to duplicate my taste. Trying to copy the product is flattery and is done all the time. But to sue club owners who helped put them on the map????? Sorry wrong dead wrong. I a club owner can find an alternative that is less expensive than so be it.
SumPoosie combines great packaging with great taste to copy it is nearly impossible the images on the bottle are copywritten.

So you are saying if all of a sudden your monthly sales drops down 1000 cases all because a cheap knock off is being sold in bars using your name, you wouldn't sue the bar to protect your product and your trademark. The images on your bottle aren't what would be copied, it would be the flavor, look, and smell. Then it would be poured out of a soda gun, who will know the difference?

This isn't flattery, it's trademark infringement and it is illegal. The Bag in Box company isn't breaking the law, it's the bar choosing to do so. It is just as illegal as filling a bottle of Grey Goose with a cheaper well vodka and charging top shelf prices.

You can make ignorant comments like that because no one is copying you, and no one is trying to pass off another product as yours. If, and this is a really big if, you were ever in Red Bull's position you would be a fool not to protect your product.

CR