Would you confuse Redwell beer with Red Bull energy drink?

News last week that the giant Austrian energy drink peddler had been picking on a British micro-brewery was enough to make Andrew Webb see red.

Attention, big multinational corporations: picking on the little guy is always, always bad PR; yet you keep on doing it. Last week is was the turn of Red Bull (™, remember) to send threatening letters to the small, independent Redwell Brewery in Norwich over a similar sounding name. Most of the papers jumped on it - after all, don't we all love a David and Goliath story? The brewery is named after a local street by the way, and apparently has no plans to enter the energy drink sector. 

Company owner Patrick Fisher said: "We were just shocked. It's been like a dark cloud hanging over us," and he has sought legal advice. He added, "Our name is different, our branding is different. We don't make energy drinks and we're not planning to move into Formula One or send a man skydiving from space very soon." A Red Bull spokesman said: "There is no dispute here. Red Bull has long been willing to allow Redwell to maintain its mark for beer, so long as they do not use it for energy drinks. Redwell's solicitor has agreed to this." I don't know about you, but I'd far rather have a well made, refreshing British beer than a can of Red Bull.

More David and Goliath battles

Of course, it's not the first time something like this has happened. Here's our round up of previous big boy bully battles...

McDonald's v… well, just about everyone

If you want to see some serious brand name protection, just try putting a 'Mc' in front of any food item and see how long you last. There are numerous cases of Ronald protecting his surname's first syllable. In 1996, Mary Blair opened McMunchies deli in Buckinghamshire. She chose the name as a play on her Scottish heritage. Ronald sued. But cometh the hour, cometh the Clan, in the form of Lord Godfrey MacDonald, chieftain o' the Clan MacDonald, who started a campaign against the corporation's harassment of businesses using the Mc prefix. The resulting bad publicity eventually saw them drop the case against McMunchies. (More of Ronald's scraps here)

The Titanic Pizza company v KFC

In 2009, the tiny Titanic Pizza in Carnoustie, Scotland (yeah, I had to look it up) got in trouble with Kentucky Fried Chicken over using the words 'family feast' to describe one of its menu offerings. Turns out Titanic had used the term first and once again, the bad publicity saw the global chicken fryer back down. 

Innocent vitamins v Innocent drinks

When the British drinks firm (58% owned by Coca-Cola) took on a Sussex housewife's fledgling vitamins business, some industry types said the firm had become a Goliath rather than the 'David' it was when launched by three Cambridge graduates in 1999. To be fair, I can see where Innocent are coming from here, but are vitamins and smoothies in the same sector? What do you think?

Burger King v Er, Burger King

Finally we have to go Stateside for this tale. In the 1950s Gene and Betty Hoots bought an ice cream stand called Frigid Queen (words from a more innocent age, dear reader). Soon they opened a joint next door selling fries and burgers. Thinking that every Queen needs a king, they called it Burger King. In the Southern USA however, the 'home of the whopper' we now know was opening restaurants. After years of legal to and fro, a court ruled that the Hoots family owned the exclusive rights to the name Burger King within their business region, defined as a 20-mile radius around town. To this day, if the other, bigger, Burger King wants to open a location in that zone, they have to pay the Hoots' to use the name.

Barbecue beer can chicken recipe

Four of the best chocolate beers

The Hairy Bikers' superb steak and ale pie recipe

Giving up caffeine and alcohol