On February 23, Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. ("China Red Bull") issued a statement saying that it has obtained the original 50-year "Agreement" and has formally submitted the original to the Supreme People's Court as an important basis for the retrial of the case. , and said that Thailand's Tencel and its attorneys would be held legally responsible.

　　Previously, the Supreme Court believed that because China Red Bull failed to provide the original agreement, the authenticity of the agreement was doubtful, and the appeal of China Red Bull was rejected.

　　Regarding the 50-year agreement, Thailand's Tencel has always stated that "the agreement has not been signed" and "the agreement involved in the case is not authentic."

Regarding the submission of the original 50-year "Agreement" by China Red Bull, as of press time, there has been no public response from Thailand's Tencel.

Originals submitted to the Supreme Court

　　On February 23, China Red Bull issued a statement saying that on November 10, 1995, China Red Bull signed an "Agreement" valid for 50 years with Thailand's Tencel, China Food Industry Corporation and Shenzhen Zhonghao Group.

　　There are nine articles in the 50-year "Agreement", of which the first article stipulates that "only China Red Bull has the right to produce and sell Red Bull beverages in China", "Thailand Tencel shall not produce in China or contract to other companies to produce or sell similar Red Bull beverages. product".

China Red Bull said that since 2019, Thai Tencel violated the agreement and contracted to a third-party company to produce and sell Red Bull beverages, causing serious losses to it.

China Red Bull has submitted it to the judicial authorities to investigate its legal responsibility.

　　China Red Bull said that Thailand's Tencel and its attorneys have repeatedly claimed in court trials at all levels of people's courts that "the agreement has not been signed" and that "the agreement involved in the case is not authentic", etc., and have been suspected of false statements and perjury .

China Red Bull will report and complain to the relevant judicial authorities for suspected illegal acts of Thai Tencel and its attorneys in accordance with the law, and investigate their legal responsibilities.

"In response to Thailand's Tencel and its agents maliciously misrepresenting the judgment of some cases, threatening to intimidate China Red Bull's suppliers and distributors at all levels, etc., China Red Bull will investigate the joint infringement of Thailand's Tencel and its manufacturers, distributors, and agents according to law. The subject's legal liability and compensation liability."

　　At present, China Red Bull has submitted the original documents to the judicial authorities.

50-year agreement is the focus

　　From trademark lawsuits to 50-year agreements, China Red Bull's business term, equity ownership, and trademark disputes have always attracted much attention.

In 2018, China Red Bull was liquidated by its partner, Thailand Tencel, on the grounds that the cooperation period had expired.

　　Regarding the operating authority, on October 20, 2018, China Red Bull explained to the Beijing News reporter that as the cost and risk compensation for Reignwood Group to operate the Red Bull brand with its own funds and manpower, Xu Shubiao, the head of Tencel in Thailand, took office. Commitment to give the joint venture exclusive rights to operate Red Bull Beverages for at least 50 years.

"Red Bull Beverage started from scratch when it entered the Chinese market, without any brand advantages and market accumulation. Reignwood has opened up territory for the Red Bull brand in a new market, bearing financial pressure and business risks."

　　China Red Bull believes that the cooperation period of 50 years and the exclusive sales rights of the joint venture company are the prerequisites for Red Bull Beverages to enter China, the protection of the interests of the stable expectations of all investors, and the foundation of creating a good business environment.

　　It is understood that on December 21, 2020, the Supreme People's Court made a final judgment on the dispute over the ownership of the "Red Bull series trademark" between Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. and Tencel Healthcare Co., Ltd.: the appeal of the joint venture company was dismissed and Beijing was upheld. The first-instance judgment made by the Municipal Higher People's Court on November 25, 2019 clarified that the ownership of the "Red Bull Series Trademarks" belongs to Tencel Group.

　　According to the judgment, the second set of evidence submitted by China Red Bull included the 50-year agreement signed on November 10, 1995 by China Food Corporation, Zhonghao Group Company, Zhongtai Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. and Tencel Company. book, and the confirmation letter issued by China National Food Industry (Group) Co., Ltd., Zhonghao Group Corporation, and Beijing Huairou District Township and Township Enterprise Corporation.

The Supreme Court held that since China Red Bull failed to provide the original agreement, even if there was a confirmation letter issued by China Foods Industry (Group) Co., Ltd., the authenticity of the agreement was still in doubt and was not accepted.

　　On January 5, 2021, Thailand's Tencel issued a statement saying that the final judgment once again clarified that the ownership of the "Red Bull series trademark" belongs to Thailand's Tencel.

"Thailand Tencel and the joint venture company's trademark license contract expired on October 6, 2016. After the expiration, the joint venture company is still illegally using the Red Bull series trademarks to produce and sell Red Bull products, resulting in the exclusive use of Tencel Group's Red Bull series trademarks. violation of rights.”

　　At that time, China Red Bull said that it would prudently study and judge the above judgment, and would protect its legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law through all possible legal channels, including applying for a retrial and filing a protest.

Now, China Red Bull claims that it has submitted the original, and the industry is also concerned about whether the development of the case will usher in new trends.

　　Beijing News reporter prince