Recently, the high-profile Red Bull "Golden Can Decoration Dispute" came to an end, and the Chongqing Municipal High People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Chongqing High Court") made a final judgment on the ownership of the rights and interests of the Red Bull Beverage Gold Can Decoration, confirming that the rights and interests of the Gold Can Decoration belonged to TENCEL Group, and that Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. (the "Joint Venture Company"), which was actually controlled by Reignwood Group, did not have rights and interests in the packaging and decoration involved in the case.
As early as 1956, the parent company of the "Red Bull" brand and beverage, TENCEL Group, was founded in Thailand by Mr. Xu Shubiao, a Thai Chinese, in 1975 Xu Shubiao invented the Red Bull beverage formula and founded the Red Bull brand, and in 1978, Red Bull began to export to the world; and in 1982, the classic gold can blue-bottom packaged Red Bull drink began to be exported to Singapore, and the packaging was also brought to the Chinese market by Mr. Xu Shubiao in the early 1990s, and was the designer and earliest user of the Red Bull gold can decoration.
In the judgment of the Chongqing Municipal Higher People's Court, before TENCEL Group authorized the joint venture company to produce Golden Can Red Bull Beverage in 1996, it was the right holder of the "RedBull and Figure" series of trademarks on a global scale, and the Red Bull brand had formed and accumulated a certain brand awareness and market value. Because of this, the joint venture company imported and sold Red Bull's "RedBull and figure" functional drinks from Thailand before the factory was built.
It is understood that the joint venture company is controlled by the Hsu family in Thailand and has shares held by Reignwood Fang, but it has been actually controlled by the company's minority shareholder Reignwood Fang, which has become a bunker for Reignwood to continue to sell Red Bull Beverages without authorization. In this case, the Chongqing Higher People's Court explicitly denied the joint venture company's so-called right to own the packaging and decoration of Red Bull Beverage, and multiple pieces of evidence also corroborated the fact that the joint venture company and related parties disregarded the expiration of the trademark license period, vainly attempted to encroach on the Red Bull trademark, and produced Red Bull Beverage without authorization. Although Reignwood may not abandon its Years of Red Bull business after losing the lawsuit, the ownership of the Red Bull series trademark and the decoration of the Red Bull Beverage Gold Can is already clear at the legal and factual levels.
From last year's final judgment of the Supreme People's Court confirming that the registered trademark rights of the Red Bull series belong to TENCEL Group, to the final judgment of the Chongqing Higher People's Court today, TENCEL Group is the owner of Red Bull beverage decoration rights, and it is clear who is the owner of Red Bull. Reignwood's manipulation of the joint venture company to distort the facts not only puts its partners in a passive position and faces huge legal risks, but also disrupts the order of fair and legal competition in the FMCG market and seriously damages the interests of all dealers.
In the (2019) Yu min zhong No. 2155 Red Bull Beverage Packaging and Decoration Dispute case heard and sentenced by the Chongqing Higher People's Court, the Chongqing High Court clearly pointed out that the joint venture company's explanations on the packaging and decoration of its Red Bull goods were all inconsistent with the facts. According to the joint venture company, the packaging and decoration of Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drinks were designed and used in 1996, not the general use of related commodities, and formed a unique relationship with the joint venture company, and the packaging and decoration clearly played a role in identifying the source of goods. However, tracing back to the source, the design and use of Red Bull Beverage packaging and decoration is not the case.
<h1>The joint venture does not enjoy the right to decorate Red Bull Beverages</h1>
The Chongqing High Court held that the date of TENCEL Group's application for trademark registration in Singapore, the notarial deed of the Singapore Law Association's Oath Commissioner and the Impartiality Commission were sufficient to show that the decoration that was very similar to the decoration involved in the case, which was composed of a combination of various elements, already existed before the joint venture company used it, and tencel Group had actually used the decoration very similar to the decoration involved in the case before the joint venture company used it, so the joint venture company did not enjoy the rights and interests in the decoration involved in the case.
In the (2021) Jing Chang'an Nei Jing Zheng Zi No. 9790, it is stated that TENCEL Group applied for the registration of the T9506272J trademark in Singapore on July 11, 1995, which is still in the validity period. The Notarial Certificate of the NC0J8V07TE of the Oath Commissioner and Notary Committee of the Singapore Law Society states that on 12 October 1991, the Singapore Daily newspaper carried the title "Red Bull Grows from Strength... To have more power" article, which is accompanied by the Red Bull logo and a drawing of The Red Bull Golden Can Beverage Product.
The above facts are reflected in the judgment:
According to the Chongqing High Court, the beverages marked by The Red Bull "RedBull and Figure" trademark were first sold to China on January 14, 1994, which was the beginning of the sale of Red Bull Beverages developed by TENCEL Group in China, much earlier than the 1996 year claimed by the joint venture. According to relevant sources, the joint venture company has been selling imported versions of Red Bull beverages since its establishment in 1996, and the amount of imported versions of Red Bull beverages sold by the joint venture company before its factory was put into operation was as high as 151 million yuan, and the imported version of Red Bull products all came from TENCEL Group.
It can be seen that the joint venture company's claim that it is a packaging and decoration designer is actually a fabrication. Such a lie is probably more unacceptable than reignwood's desire to possess the Red Bull trademark on the grounds of contribution at the beginning of the Red Bull controversy. Reignwood Fang once said, "Some people want to pick peaches." Now it seems that the TENCEL Group is the de facto and legal tree planter, who wants to steal the fruits of others, at a glance.
<h1>The joint venture infringed the use of the Red Bull trademark to produce Red Bull beverages</h1>
In this lawsuit, the Chongqing High Court also investigated the use of the Red Bull trademark license and once again determined the fact that the trademark license period was a total of 20 years (December 26, 1996 to October 6, 2016). In response to the current use of the Red Bull trademark, the court stated in the judgment that the joint venture company was still producing Red Bull vitamin functional drinks after the expiration of the trademark licensing contract. (See figure below)
At the same time, as the right holder of the registered trademark of the Red Bull series, TENCEL Group and its affiliated enterprises have spent huge sums of money to improve production technology, improve production facilities, expand production scale, and maintain the historical inheritance and market value of the Red Bull brand through some production and operation activities. Therefore, the Chongqing Higher People's Court ruled that the production and operation activities of tencel Group and its affiliated enterprises claimed by the joint venture company had nothing to do with this case, and thus negated the original market basis of the Red Bull brand, which was inconsistent with the objective facts.
From the final judgment of the Chongqing Higher People's Court in the "Red Bull Packaging and Decoration Dispute Case", it can be directly seen that the Red Bull trademark and decoration actually belong to TENCEL Group. The joint venture company, which is actually controlled by Reignwood, blatantly appropriated the national general packaging and the decoration of the "golden pot" belonging to the TENCEL Group as its own, and maliciously applied for a patent in this way, which not only misled the distributor, but also harmed the interests of the distributor, ignoring the partners' demands for product legitimacy.
Since the red bull brand tug-of-war began in 2016, red bull trademark ownership, "golden pot" decoration rights and trademark authorization period have been the focus of debate between TENCEL and Reignwood, and a paper lawsuit has made the major dealers and suppliers representing Red Bull fearful and walking on thin ice. However, with the law ruling that the Red Bull brand trademark and Red Bull brand decoration belong to TENCEL Group, and verifying the fact that the trademark license agreement between TENCEL Group and the joint venture company expired in October 2016, the distributors and suppliers who cooperated with TENCEL Group should be regarded as a "reassuring pill". For other companies that cooperate with Reignwood, most of them are currently facing two choices, either to plan a retreat in time, or to re-seek cooperation with TENCEL Group and continue to represent Red Bull products using existing channels and resources