On 30 October 2026, an entry in the online register caused a stir: according to media reports, the term “Nabada” was listed as a word mark dated 24 July 2026, with the applicant named as Red Bull Germany GmbH & Co. KG and the address Magirus-Deutz-Straße 12, 89077 Ulm. This caused considerable outrage in the city and among the public, as the Nabada is considered an integral part of Ulm’s Schwörwoche and a piece of municipal cultural heritage.
The company immediately disputed this account. Red Bull said it had informed the city administration in a letter from its lawyers that neither its client nor the company nor any agency commissioned by it had applied to register the trademark. According to the company, the application visible in the registers was not its responsibility. Several regional media outlets reported the denial and the discrepancy between the register entry and the company’s statement.
The The City of Ulm initially asked the purported trademark owner to withdraw the application and subsequently instructed lawyers; the administration made clear that it intended to establish the origin of the entry and defend the term “Nabada” against unauthorised registrations. The council’s action cited the Nabada’s importance to the city’s identity and the potential economic consequences if an outside party were to enforce use of the name without consent.
Research by regional media has also pointed to a technical explanation: under the German Patent and Trade Mark Office’s (DPMA) examination rules, trademarks can only be registered after examination and within certain time limits; at the same time, entries may in some cases be provisionally visible in the register even when legal responsibility is disputed. Media outlets cited the DPMA register as the starting point for their coverage, while Red Bull said the register result was inconsistent with its own internal records.
Several questions remain open from a legal perspective: who actually initiated the application, what information was provided and for what purpose, and whether there was misuse or impersonation. The City of Ulm has made its position clear: it will not tolerate the commercialisation of the term without the city’s involvement. The case could raise civil and criminal law issues, such as forgery of documents or identity fraud; decisions on these matters rest with the relevant authorities and courts.
What happens next will depend on the DPMA’s examination, responses from the registered applicant and any possible investigations. So far, reports have been based on a combination of the register entry and the denial by the company named; clarifying the facts is a task for the coming days.
Editor: Mira Cadena (Article created with AI assistance).