Recently, the "50-year agreement" between Tencel Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Thailand Tencel) and Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Red Bull) has ushered in new developments.
On July 30, in response to the rejection of Thailand's Tencel lawsuit against Chinese Red Bull distributor Changsha Huaxia Sugar and Wine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Huaxia Sugar and Wine Company") for trademark infringement, China Red Bull issued a statement saying that the Changsha Intermediate People's Court found that Tencel Company (Thailand Tencel) currently has insufficient and effective evidence to prove that Red Bull Company infringed Tencel's trademark rights, and its claim that Red Bull's subordinate distributor Huaxia Sugar and Wine Company infringed trademark rights is insufficient.
As one of the earliest and most successful distributors using the direct distribution model, Huaxia Sugar & Liquor Company has been firmly in the top position of Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drink distributors in Hunan Province for more than ten years. In 2020 alone, the company distributed 2.07 million cases of Red Bull vitamin energy drinks, with sales of more than 230 million.
Since the "Red Bull Dispute" in 2016, after years of see-sawing, the contradictions and conflicts between Chinese Red Bull and Thailand's Tencel have intensified, and the trademark dispute has finally spread to the channel and dealer level.
In 2021, Thailand Tencel filed a lawsuit against Huaxia Sugar and Liquor Company for trademark infringement.
After the trial, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court finally found that since there was no sufficient and effective evidence to prove that Red Bull had infringed Tencel's trademark rights, and its claim that Red Bull's subordinate distributor Tangjiu Company had infringed the trademark rights was insufficient, the court did not support it and rejected all of Tencel's claims.
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, it 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 itself shall not 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.
On the other hand, the validity of the "50-year agreement" has been controversial since the Red Bull dispute.
China Red Bull stressed in the statement that the judgment also confirms the authenticity and legality of the relevant facts of the long-term agreements signed between Thailand Tencel and Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. (China Red Bull) in 1995 and the 40-year Trademark Use Right Contract signed in 1998, and is also a support for the legitimate rights of China Red Bull's industry chain partners, agents and distributors at all levels to sell "Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drink".
It is worth noting that in recent years, a number of people's courts have rendered first-instance judgments against the infringement of major production plants and sales companies under Reignwood Group, holding that the production or sale of Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drink Co., Ltd., as well as Reignwood Group's Jiangsu Factory, Guangdong Factory, Hubei Factory, Sales Company and Reignwood Distributor's Distributor in producing or selling Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drink, is a trademark infringement, and the infringing enterprise must stop using the Red Bull trademark and stop producing and selling the infringing product [Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drink]. In the above judgment, Reignwood System was sentenced to compensate Tencel for economic losses of nearly 600 million yuan.
This series of cases has not only caused continuous controversy in the legal and practical circles, but also caused great concern in the industry due to the adverse social impact caused by them.
The coexistence of multiple Red Bulls in the market is a kind of harm to the brand, and it also passes on the hidden danger of infringement to dealers and consumers, bringing serious hidden dangers to the relevant parties in the "upstream and downstream" links of its industrial chain.
In the fiercely competitive energy drink track, Red Bull's "infighting" has also given many opponents the opportunity to rise, including Dongpeng Beverage, Lehu, Yuanqi Forest, etc., many players are frantically eating away at Red Bull's market share.
(Data source: choice data)
This Red Bull trademark battle also reminds us of the importance of brand protection. While the enterprise continues to develop and expand, it is more necessary to maintain the intellectual property achievements that have been achieved, which is the top priority of the future development of the enterprise, otherwise it may fall into the quagmire of the right of invasion and fall into a passive situation.
In the statement, China Red Bull finally called on Thailand Tencel to respect historical objective facts, fulfill contractual obligations, protect the legitimate rights and interests of China Red Bull and its long-term industrial chain partners and distributors, and take the initiative to withdraw other similar lawsuits to avoid the abuse of judicial resources and affect the development of China's real economy.