Thai owners of Red Bull face indictment in Phl

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) has ordered the indictment of officers of the Bangkok-based manufacturer of a popular energy drink and its local distributor for alleged violation of the country’s Intellectual Property Code and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

In a resolution signed by Undersecretary Jose Vicente Salazar, the DOJ directed the Legazpi City prosecutor’s office to file charges against officials of Thai company T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co. Ltd., manufacturer of Red Bull energy drink, and Maryland Distributors Inc.

Named respondents in the case are the Bangkok-based TCP officers Pavana Langthara, Suthirat Yoovidhya, Supreeya Yoovidhya, Nucharee Yoovidhya, and Visuit Chiemkitchavarote along with MDI officers Gino Baltao, Gina Tolentino, Ramoncito Abad, Benjamin Ros, and Nelson Escobar.

The DOJ acted on a petition filed by Energy Food and Drinks Inc. (EFDI), a local company appointed by TCP in March 2003 as the exclusive Philippine distributor of Red Bull Supreme Energy Drink.

The EFDI obtained a Certificate of Product Registration for Red Bull with the Bureau of Food and Drugs, which will expire on March 31, 2013.

The DOJ resolution issued last June 21 reversed the findings of the prosecutor’s office dismissing the complaint filed by EFDI against the respondents.

The DOJ noted that a food product shall be deemed misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.

“Since complainant EFDI was the exclusive distributor, its name must be indicated in the label of Red Bull products. In the instant case, however, the bottles of Red Bull bore tampered stickers/label,” the DOJ resolution said.

The DOJ also found conspiracy among the officers of TCP and MDI “when they acted in unison in violating the property rights of EFDI.”

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by EFDI after discovering that there was a proliferation in the market of Red Bull products with “MDI” stickers superimposed on the portion of the label that identified EFDI as the product’s exclusive distributor.

The prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was a “civil dispute over a product distributorship agreement.”

EFDI filed motions for reconsideration and inhibition on Dec. 17, 2010 but both were denied by the prosecutor’s office, prompting EFDI to elevate the case to the DOJ.