China Law Blog

I agree that Ogilvy didn't really respond and in fact, just made Steve's points even stronger. The one lingering question that I have though, is just what did Danone contribute to the original JV? production technology? packaging know how? brand building/marketing expertise? or was it just money?

I know that one can only speculate, but would Wahaha be as well known a brand name without Danone's experience and help? Or was the rise of the company's name/brand/reputation only due to the "hard work" of Mr. Zong and his family workers?

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Well I'd like to know if it was any business of ChinaLawBlog's lawyers to comment in the first place. If it's not your deal you are inevitably uninformed. Marketing tack to link them to the case. Disgraceful behavior imo.

Terry,

I don't know, but I will check with Steve to see if he does. Anyone else?

Bruce Dickenson,

Cases are usually public and there is a very long tradition of lawyers commenting on them. Without that tradition, there would be no law review journals (and there are thousands of those), no hornbooks (and there are thousands -- or maybe just hundreds of those) and no legal blogs (and there are probably thousands of those also. So if you really have a complaint about this, I suggest you voice it in more places than just here if you hope to have any impact.

Understood but neither are YOU qualified to offer such opinions either. You are not a China registered lawyer. Stick to Seattle where you ARE registered and stop pretending to be competent in areas of law concerning disputes where you have no jurisprudence or licence to operate.

Bruce Dickenson,

It was NOT me who offered the opinion. It was Steve Dickinson, who is an foreign law consultant at one of Shanghai's leading law firms. Steve taught Chinese law at the University of Washington School of Law for many years, led classes for Chinese judges for many years, taught law (in Chinese) at Peking University, and has been involved with China and Chinese legal matters for 30 years. Is that not enough qualification for you? Rather than go after us ad hominem, why don't you tell us that which you disagree with in Steve's article.

Don't see what is wrong with someone commenting on a news event with implications for others in business.

Paul M,

Isn't that what blogging is all about? Apparently Mr. Dickenson would disagree, which makes it rather strange that he seems always to be lurking about this blog.

Not to mention the fact that comment from people who have a background in China law and are aware of the issues highlighted helps to inform other media reports, raising the overall standard of media (and business or social) discussion on the case.

From these two articles, this JV is too problem ridden to be saved. There shouldn't be any losers after arbitration, but there will be a bigger winner: Mr. Zong. If the transfer of the exclusive license for the Wahaha trademark is deemed to be illegal then the JV could never have been formed. But it was, and the JV prospered due to both Wahaha's trademark and Danone's capital. Apparently, Mr. Zong improperly formed companies to compete with the JV and formed other companies using the Wahaha trademark. The most realistic and most fair result in arbitration in the light that the JV may have been formed improperly would be to let Zong continue to control the Wahaha trademark (which is at the heart of this matter), and have Zong pay damages to Danone for lost profits from all companies formed using the Wahaha trademark and all companies formed by Zong in violation of the non-compete clause and a repayment of the RMB500 million from the original JV.

The point of Ogilvy's article seems to be that if "we" let Zong get away with this then "it" will destroy Chinese-France relations, and destroy China as a destination for foreign capital. Unfortunately, both sides are at fault, one didn't follow the technicalities of the law, one failed to perform diligence and make sure they received a valid license. What relation does Bruce Dickensen have to Danone? Their attorney?

Gentlemen (yes, even you Bruce), a few days ago Swedish court ruled in favor of Wahaha:

http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentClusterReader.aspx?Item=16_879866912

Now, was this decision consistent with what happened in Chinese court?