On October 10, the trademark ownership dispute case between Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. ("China Red Bull") and Tencel Pharmaceuticals and Health Care Co., Ltd. ("Tence Pharmaceuticals") was settled in the Supreme People's Court on the 10th Four courts. The live broadcast of the trial was viewed by more than 300,000 people.

The appellant China Red Bull claimed that the court of first instance did not review the established facts and that many basic facts were unclear. Therefore, it requested that the first-instance judgment be revoked and the case be sent back for retrial. China Red Bull has also made it clear that its claim is to confirm its legitimate rights and interests as the owner of the relevant trademark, not trademark ownership.

Tencel Pharmaceuticals, the appellee, argued that the relevant judgment of the court of first instance complied with legal procedures and that Tencel Pharmaceuticals holds clear, independent and complete ownership of the Red Bull series of trademarks. The meaning of the relevant clauses in the "95-year joint venture contract" signed by Tencel Pharmaceuticals and other shareholders on November 10, 1995 is that Thai Tencel, as the trademark owner, provides a trademark use license to Red Bull Beverage Company, and it is in no way a transfer of the Red Bull trademark. ownership.

It is understood that the above-mentioned "95-year joint venture contract" refers to November 10, 1995, between Tencel Pharmaceuticals and China Shenzhen Zhonghao (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Food Industry Corporation and Red Bull Vitamin Beverage (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Red Bull Thailand Company) signed the "Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. Contract", agreeing that *** will jointly invest in the establishment of Red Bull Beverage Company, and it was agreed that Tencel Pharmaceutical Company "provides the product formula and technology of Red Bull Beverage Company" Technology, trademark and subsequent improvement technology” and “The trademarks of Red Bull Beverage Company’s products are part of the assets of Red Bull Beverage Company”

According to the judgment of the Beijing Higher People’s Court in November 2019, Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Ltd., as the plaintiff, requested the court to confirm its claim against Nos. 878072, 878073, 1289559, 1264582, 5608276, 1219609, 5035427, 969643, 11227127, 11460102, 5035426, 3478098, 24144331, 1122711 5. 17 Red Bull series trademarks registered trademarks No. 5033257 and 5033255 Enjoy the legitimate rights and interests of the owner, and require the owner of Thai Red Bull Tencel Medical Healthcare Co., Ltd. to pay it a total of 3.753 billion yuan in advertising expenses.

China Red Bull requests confirmation that the above-mentioned Red Bull series trademarks are exclusively owned by Red Bull Vitamins. If this cannot be confirmed, Red Bull Vitamins and Tencel Pharmaceuticals are jointly owned. On November 25, 2019, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a first-instance judgment on the case and rejected all claims of Beijing Red Bull.

Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. stated in a statement on the evening of November 28, 2019 that China Red Bull is the only investor and contribution to the "Red Bull series trademarks" from zero value to tens of billions of market value in the Chinese market who.

China Red Bull’s core claim in this case is to request the court to confirm that the company has legitimate rights and interests in the “Red Bull Series Trademarks”, that is, it has the right to use the “Red Bull Series Trademarks” and enjoy the income attached thereto, etc. legitimate rights and interests, rather than requesting the court to confirm that our company is the registered trademark owner.

The first-instance judgment avoided the aforementioned core issues and only focused on the review and judgment of whether the "Red Bull Series Trademarks" have trademark ownership, which deviated from the company's true demands.

It is worth mentioning that during the second instance, China Red Bull submitted the 50-year agreement as new evidence. In the first instance, China Red Bull also submitted this agreement as evidence, but later withdrew it.

China Red Bull stated that due to objective reasons, China Red Bull did not find the original copy of the agreement, but China Red Bull sought help from the parties that signed the agreement. At the time of the first instance, China Red Bull had not yet obtained the agreement from Zhonghao, the signatory of the agreement. The company's confirmation letter and the agreement was therefore withdrawn.

In this regard, Tencel Pharmaceuticals believes that it is a violation of the law for the appellant to overturn the litigation that has been carried out in the first instance and to re-add the agreement withdrawn in the first instance to the second instance.

The second trial of this case lasted nearly 4 hours, and the verdict was not pronounced in court.

It is reported that the Red Bull trademark has been well publicized and its slogan "Your energy is beyond your imagination" has left a deep impression on the public. The final destination of the Red Bull trademark is also the consumption of Red Bull drinks. Everyone pays the same attention.