On July 30, Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "China Red Bull") issued a "statement on the court's rejection of all claims for trademark infringement of Thailand Tencel v. China Red Bull Partners" seemed to "provoke" Thailand Tencel Group, which issued a statement on its official WeChat account the next day saying that it would appeal the judgment in accordance with the law, and even pointed the finger at the court itself, and said that it would report and give feedback to the relevant departments.
However, just today (August 1), China Red Bull gave a strong response to the above statement of Thailand Tencel, this response not only once again emphasized that the core content of the 50-year "agreement" signed by the two sides that year is to determine the exclusive production and sales rights of China Red Bull for Red Bull drinks in China for 50 years, and it is worth noting that China Red Bull also directly named the former CEO of China Red Bull this time, colluded with Thailand Tencel inside and outside, and adopted various "ulterior means" to achieve the purpose of "picking peaches".
"However, the Justice Council shows that the Changsha Intermediate Court's victory judgment against Chinese Red Bull dealers is the best proof," China Red Bull said, "Thailand Tencel not only seriously violates the spirit of the contract, but also breaks through the bottom line of faith and conscience.
1、
The court ruled against Tencel and that the China Red Bull distributor did not infringe
On July 30, China Red Bull issued the "Statement on the Court's Rejection of All Claims for Trademark Infringement of Thailand Tencel v. China Red Bull Partners", which stated:
In 2021, Thailand Tencel initiated a lawsuit against Changsha Huaxia Sugar and Wine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huaxia Sugar and Wine Company), a partner of China's Red Bull industry chain, with the intention of obstructing and disrupting the legitimate business of China's Red Bull partner on the grounds of trademark infringement.
On July 29, 2024, the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province issued a judgment in the civil judgment ((2021) Xiang 01 Min Chu No. 564) in this case, rejecting all the claims of Thailand Tencel.
According to the statement, in the judgment, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court once again clearly affirmed the core point of the Supreme People's Court in the retrial case related to the ownership of the Red Bull trademark "50-year exclusive right to use". The Changsha Intermediate People's Court held that, according to the (2021) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 1162 Civil Ruling issued by the Supreme People's Court on August 31, 2023, the Supreme People's Court held that the 95-year Joint Venture Contract submitted by Red Bull and the 50-year Agreement submitted by Red Bull in the retrial review stage belonged to the exclusive use of the trademark by the trademark registrant to others, and the trademark registrant himself was not allowed to use the registered trademark in violation of the license contract after the exclusive license of the trademark. Under the exclusive licensing model, the trademark registrant only grants others the right to use the trademark within a certain time and space, limiting its own right to use.
The statement also said that the Changsha Intermediate People's Court's judgment also confirmed the authenticity and legality of the relevant facts of the long-term agreements signed by Thailand Tencel and China Red Bull) in 1995 and the 40-year Trademark Use Right Contract signed in 1998.
Based on this, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court held that "Tencel Company currently does not have sufficient and effective evidence to prove that Red Bull Company infringed Tencel's trademark right, so its claim that Red Bull's subordinate distributor Sugar and Liquor Company infringed the trademark right in this case is not based on sufficient grounds, and this court does not support it." ”
2、
Tencel was not convinced, accusing the court of suspected procedural violations
It is reported that Huaxia Sugar & Liquor Co., Ltd. was founded in 1992 and is one of the earliest and more successful FMCG operators in the local area, not only has a large number of distribution partners for many years, but also sells its products to large supermarkets, convenience stores and other chain systems in Hunan. Since 2003, Huaxia Sugar & Liquor Co., Ltd. has reached cooperation with China Red Bull for 21 years, and the annual sales of Red Bull vitamin functional drinks have exceeded 200 million.
According to reports, Thailand Tencel's lawsuit against Huaxia Sugar and Wine has had a considerable impact on the company's normal operations, including many challenges such as the sales network established through more than 30 years of operation, goodwill and the livelihood of 200 employees.
Sun Jie, the lawyer representing Huaxia Sugar and Wine in this case, Beijing Rongli Law Firm, said that Thailand Tencel sued the seller separately across the country with the same trademark, the same claim, the same facts and reasons, and its behavior was an artificial split lawsuit, abuse of rights and waste of judicial resources, and violated the principle of good faith in civil litigation. This is a serious departure from the nature of legal proceedings for the purpose of protecting legitimate rights and interests. "The judgment of the Changsha Intermediate People's Court reflects the judicial wisdom and the 'temperature' of people's livelihood in people's livelihood cases." Sun Jie said.
However, the above statement of Chinese Red Bull has caused dissatisfaction with Thailand Tencel.
On July 31, Tencel issued a statement stating that in December 2020, the Supreme People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Court") (2020) Supreme Court Min Zhong No. 394 Final Effective Judgment had clearly confirmed that the "Red Bull" series of trademarks belonged to Tencel Group, and that the trademark license of Tencel Group to Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. had expired on October 6, 2016, and the ownership of the "Red Bull" trademark was stable and clear.
Tencel said that it was not satisfied with the judgment and would appeal in accordance with the law, but what is interesting is that the Tencel Group, which lost the case, actually pointed the finger at the court, accusing "this case is suspected of procedural violations and other illegal acts", and Tencel Group will report and give feedback to the relevant departments in accordance with the law based on the clues it has obtained.
3、
China's Red Bull counterattack: Tencel never mentioned the 50-year agreement, confusing the public
In fact, the core focus of the protracted "Chinese and foreign Red Bull" dispute is whether the 50-year cooperation agreement signed by the two sides is valid. Previously, because China Red Bull had not provided the original copy of the 50-year agreement, the relevant parties of Thailand Tencel had also issued several public statements firmly denying the existence of the 50-year agreement.
However, in February 2022, China Red Bull finally found the original copy of the 50-year-old Agreement and submitted the new evidence to the court. This not only slapped Thailand Tencel in the face, but also confirmed that China Red Bull had repeatedly accused Thailand Tencel related parties of "lying" and "perjury" on this issue. At the same time, the dispute between the two sides has also ushered in a major turning point.
At the end of 2022, the Qianhai District People's Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province issued a civil judgment (2019) Yue 0391 Min Chu No. 725 that Article 1 of the 50-year Agreement signed by the four parties to the joint venture on November 10, 1995 was true and valid. That is, only China Red Bull has the right to produce and sell Red Bull beverages in China. Without written consent or permission, Thailand Tencel shall not manufacture or contract to other companies to produce or sell similar products of Red Bull Beverage in China.
Because of this, today (August 1), China Red Bull issued another statement in response, publicly refuting Thailand's Tencel statement on July 31.
"On August 31, 2023, the Supreme People's Court issued the (2021) Supreme Law Min Shen No. 1162 Civil Ruling, finding that China Red Bull has the exclusive right to use the trademark for 50 years and that Thailand Tencel has the obligation not to use the registered trademark. So far, the new evidence of the original 50-year-old Agreement has been successively affirmed by the Qianhai Court and the Supreme Court, and the relevant determinations have changed the relevant facts determined by the Supreme People's Court in the ownership case. This is also the background and factual basis of the Changsha Intermediate People's Court's (2021) Xiang 01 Min Chu No. 564 judgment, which is reasonable and legal. ”
China Red Bull also pointed out that the statement issued by Thailand Tencel on July 31 did not respond positively to the authenticity of the 50-year "Agreement" and the "exclusive management right" of China Red Bull as determined in the Changsha Intermediate People's Court's judgment, but used the judgment as a procedural problem and the possibility of appealing to cover up the malicious tearing up of the contract and abuse of the right of action, and continued to rely on the Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Court Civil Zhong No. 394 Judgment, which is to confuse the public.
4、
China Red Bull reprimanded the former CEO for colluding inside and outside, and accompanied Tencel's illegal acts to the end
The core content of the 50-year "Agreement" is to determine the exclusive right of China Red Bull to produce and sell Red Bull drinks in China for 50 years, and Thailand Tencel is not allowed to produce and sell Red Bull drinks.
"In the face of such ironclad evidence, Thailand Tencel still refuses to recognize the 50-year "Agreement", denies the legitimate rights and interests that China Red Bull should enjoy for its own selfish interests, and vainly tries to embezzle the huge achievements of Chinese Red Bull people in 29 years of hard work, which not only seriously violates the spirit of the contract, but also breaks through the bottom line of faith and conscience. China's Red Bull statement said so firmly.
China Red Bull products have been in production and sales
What's more important is that China Red Bull also directly named in this statement, revealing another fuse of the dispute between Chinese and foreign Red Bulls, that is, the former CEO of China Red Bull.
In the statement, China Red Bull said: After the development of the Red Bull brand in China, the former CEO of China Red Bull and Thailand Tencel colluded with the internal and external parties to register a new company to replace China Red Bull.
The statement said: Thailand Tencel first threatened to cut off the supply of flavors and fragrances, stop using trademarks, etc., maliciously robbed and grabbed the assets and market share of the joint venture company, and after obtaining certain "results" through coercion and false negotiations, it began to use judicial litigation and behavior preservation as tools, supplemented by exaggerated publicity, intimidation and other ulterior means by public opinion, in an attempt to "encircle and suppress" China Red Bull, commissioned processors, suppliers and sellers, in order to achieve the strategic goal of "picking peaches".
As the industry knows, the former CEO of China Red Bull is Wang Rui, a capable player brought by Yan Bin from Shenzhen to Beijing, who has served as the general manager of China Red Bull for 11 years. However, in November 2014, the heroine resigned from Reignwood Group and Red Bull China.
Now, the packaging of Thailand Tencel-related Red Bull products shows that the general distributor is "Pusheng Food (Beijing) Co., Ltd." According to the enterprise investigation, the company's legal person Wang Rui was established in November 2017, three years after Wang Rui's resignation from China Red Bull.
Even in the face of cronies and ministers becoming "opponents", China Red Bull is still full of confidence in its statement today: "The dark clouds will never cover the sun, justice will always be demonstrated, and the Changsha Intermediate People's Court's winning judgment against Chinese Red Bull dealers is the best proof", "No enterprise, whether Chinese or foreign, has the privilege of going beyond the law, and the law will never give in to the law." Creating momentum and confusing the public to demand supra-national treatment in China, and interfering with and attacking judicial decisions with unreasonable coercion is a blasphemy of national laws and a challenge to judicial authority, and its outcome is doomed to failure."