China News Service, Guangzhou, May 28th (Cheng Jingwei) - “Wanglaoji (Weibo)” trademark case continued to draw attention. After Jiaduobao group announced that they “had applied to repeal the previous adjudication and finished filing to the court”, Guangzhuang Pharmaceutical Group replied on the 28th, saying that before the court made the ruling of “no enforcement”, the binding power of the adjudication on the trademark “Wanglaoji” would not be affected.
On that day, Guangzhuang Pharmaceutical Group granted in Guangzhou the right to manufacture and sell the red-can and red-bottle “Wanglaoji” herbal tea to a subsidiary company in Guangzhou. At the same time, Guangzhuang Pharmaceutical told the press that, from selling the red-can and red-bottle “Wanglaoji” herbal tea previously, Jiaduobao received more than 7.5 billion RMB of “illegal income”, based on which Guangzhuang Pharmaceutical would demand for compensation, but the final result would have to be confirmed by legal adjudication.
In regards to Guangzhou Pharmaceutical’s response that day, reporters from China News Service contacted the related media representatives of Jiaduobao for interviews, but received no response.
Guangzhou Pharmaceutical and the parent company of Jiaduobao, Hongdao Group’s battle over “Wanglaoji” trademark has been on for years, and is named “China’s No. 1 Trademark Case” because the trademark value exceeds hundreds of billions RMB. China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission made the adjudication on May 9th that the two supplement agreements signed between Guangzhou Pharmaceutical and Hong Kong Hongdao Group were ineffective. Hongdao should stop using the trademark “Wanglaoji”.
Jiaduobao Group announced a statement that they were not convinced by the previous ruling, and had applied to repeal the previous ruling and finished filing to the court. The Group said that, according to related laws of China, during the period of its application for repeal, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical could not apply for the implementing of the ruling legally.
The Deputy General Manager of Guangzhou Pharmaceutical’s marketing department, Ni Yidong, responded on 28th, saying that the statement from Hongdao was a deliberate bafflement and misinterpretation used to mislead retailers, consumers and the press. Guangzhou Pharmaceutical had the right to file a follow-up lawsuit against the negative impact and harm caused by their actions.
Zhang Hong, the attorney from Beijing Janlea Law Firm representing the Guangzhou Pharmaceutical trademark case, said that adjudications in China adopt the “immediate effect” principle, and as soon as they are made they would have legal binding power. If the involved parties think that the adjudication is unlawful in terms of its procedure, they can apply to the court for repeal. However, before the actual repeal takes place, all involved parties should at one implement the adjudication.
Zhang Hong said that this case involved foreign-related adjudication. According to the Chinese Arbitration Law, only when the involved parties provide proof of procedural problems within the adjudication and when the court confirms after investigation, the adjudication can be ruled for “no enforcement”. As for the media’s question concerning the possibility for the adjudication to be repealed, Zhang Hong said that as far as the adjudication is concerned, only if the procedures were problematic, the adjudication would be repealed. However, the adjudication on “Wanglaoji” trademark case, made after time-consuming and cautious trial, is reasonably enough to be believed to have no procedural problems.
Ni Yidong said that Jiaduobao’s application for repeal of the adjudication would not affect the introduction of the company’s product. Guangzhou Pharmaceutical’s version of red-can “Wanglaoji” will enter the market at the beginning of June, and Guangzhou Pharmaceutical have not yet receive related notice from the court.
