China’s Red Bull series of disputes have recently made new progress. On January 5, 2021, Tencel Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tencel Company”) filed a lawsuit against the Supreme People’s Court’s Civil Judgment on December 21, 2020 ((2020) Supreme People’s Court No. 394) (hereinafter referred to as A statement issued on the findings in the "Second Instance Judgment" stated that the judgment once again clarified that the rights to the "Red Bull Series Trademarks" belong to Tencel. Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "China Red Bull") issued a statement on January 6, saying that China Red Bull will further carefully study and judge and use all possible legal remedies, including applying for retrial and filing a protest, to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law. At the same time, it said that the relevant disputes about the "50-year agreement" have been litigated in another case.

China Red Bull said in a statement that the second-instance judgment is not the end of the legal relationship between the two parties. The legal relationship between China Red Bull and Tencel involves three aspects: the contractual legal relationship stipulates that only China Red Bull (the joint venture) has the right to "produce and sell Red Bull beverages" in China (exclusive production and sales); the corporate legal relationship stipulates "The trademarks of the joint venture's products are part of the joint venture's assets." Since August 1996, when the first can of Red Bull product came off the production line, the joint venture has designed its own Red Bull product trademark and has not used Tencel's registered trademark; trademark legal relationship It is information recorded in administrative registration, not the true ownership status of the trademark. The true ownership status should be confirmed according to the stipulations of the contract. Relevant litigation and arbitration are currently being heard by Shenzhen Qianhai Court and international arbitration institutions.

China Red Bull believes that based on the error of the first-instance judgment, the second-instance court still failed to clarify the rights and obligations agreed between Tencel and China Red Bull during the contract and cooperation process, as well as the trademarks generated on this basis. and other equity relationships. China Red Bull will further prudently study and judge, and protect its legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law through all possible legal remedies, including applying for retrial and filing a protest.

Regarding the "50-Year Agreement", China Red Bull stated that it has filed a separate lawsuit with Tencel, which is currently under trial. China Red Bull believes that the 50-year cooperation period and the joint venture's exclusive operating and sales rights are the prerequisite for Red Bull Beverage to enter China, which is the protection of the interests of investors of all parties with stable expectations, and is also the basis for creating a good business environment.

China Red Bull stated in a statement that it still insists that the "Red Bull series trademarks" are the assets of the joint venture company, and the dispute has been filed for international arbitration by the shareholder Reignwood Group. According to Article 93 of the Supreme Court's "Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law" and the Supreme Court's precedent ((2018) Supreme Court Minshen No. 5106), the "probative effect" of the facts identified in the effective judgment of the People's Court is not absolute. Although the facts confirmed by the effective judgment, The parties do not need to provide evidence, unless the parties have contrary evidence that is sufficient to overturn the case. The core claim of China Red Bull in this case is to ask the court to confirm that the company has legal 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 legitimate rights and interests attached to them, rather than asking the court to confirm that the company has legal rights and interests in the "Red Bull series trademarks". Confirm that our company is the registered trademark owner. However, the two-instance judgments ignored the core issues mentioned above and only focused on whether the company had trademark ownership rights for the "Red Bull Series Trademarks", which deviated from the company's true demands. China Red Bull is confident that relevant parties can provide contrary evidence and restore the truth through international arbitration.

Finally, China Red Bull would like to thank consumers and Thai partners for their continued support of China Red Bull over the past 20 years! The media and the public are reminded not to over-interpret the second-instance judgment, and express that they will continue to do a good job in the production and sales of high-quality "Red Bull Vitamin Functional Drink". Subsequently, China Red Bull will successively release the details of the "White Paper on the Development History of China Red Bull" (1995-2020), which will disclose in detail the origin of the cooperation between Reignwood Group and Tencel, the difficult development history of China Red Bull, and the causes and consequences of the series of disputes.