The Court Ultimately Supported Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company’s Application for an Injunction


(BY Albert Chen  ) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) is the holder of the王老吉 (the “Wang Lao Ji”) trademark in mainland China. In 2000, it licensed Hongdao Group, a Hong Kong admitted company, to use the trademark. After Hongdao Group used the trademark and caused it to develop a definite business reputation, however, a dispute broke out between the two parties over the right to use the Wang Lao Ji trademark.

In the first round of the fighting between the parties, GPHC used arbitration with CIETAC to cancel the supplementary agreements signed between two parties in 2002 and 2003 based upon the fact that the agreements were executed under commercial bribery. This website has discussed the implementation problems arising in that case. After that, the subsidiary of Hongdao Group that had sold Wang Lao Ji, Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) began to sell its herbal tea under the brand name 加多宝(the “JDB”) Additionally, JDB used disputed slogans, such as “Wang Lao Ji now calls itself JDB,” “China’s top selling red can herbal tea now call itself JDB.” Claiming that such slogans constituted false advertising or unfair competition GPHC filed for an injunction with the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and demanded an immediate halt to such advertisements.


Is Tencent’s 51Buy’s “Higher Price Reimbursement” Strategy against 360buy Illegal?


(By You Yunting) As reported by the media, the e-commerce site has instituted a so-called “higher price compensation” strategy: if clients of, an affiliate of Tencent, find a lower price for an item on, then will refund the price difference to the client as credits. According to, however, this action violates the Anti-unfair Competition Law and relevant commercial ethics. therefore sent a warning letter to In reply, used its Weibo to state that the activity is legitimate and will continue.


Will the Wang Lao Ji Brand Holder’s Litigation Injunction Application Against Jia Duo Bao Be Approved?


(By Albert Chen) The hearing in the false advertising dispute between Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) (SSE: 600332) and Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) was held in January of 2013 in the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. In addition to the arguments over false advertising, the application for a litigation injunction has been hotly debated. Today, we would like to introduce you to the injunction, which is called “preliminary execution” in China’s Civil Procedure Law.


Analysis on Common Legal Risk of Chinese Company’s Ads

By You Yunting

The competition in Chinese market is so fierce that the company would strive to make their ads be more outstanding, yet that could also bring them the risks of administrative punishment. In today’s essay, you will see our analysis on the common risk for corporate propaganda.

I. No fulfilling to the promise in propaganda

The most typical case shall be the ads from Beijing Hyundai (note: the link is in Chinese), the joint venture of Hyundai in China. As claimed in the its ads, the chief of the company promised not to reduce the sales price of its vehicle in the coming 2 years, which soon be overthrown by its price adjustment within 120 days after that with the pressure from market competition. On that, we saw the consumer filing a group lawsuit against its break-in of promise. Despite as investigated by the company that, the words of the chief is not quit the same as claimed in the media report, and Hyundai was therefore judged of no liability, the Korean brand faced a devaluing of social reputation in China. In our opinions, the losses of intangible asset of the car maker are much more than the claimed compensation. And that shall mainly lie with the over promise by the company.