Danone loses Wahaha dispute

Forbes has just reported that China's Hangzhou Arbitration Commission has ruled in favour of Wahaha Group in its highly-publicised trade mark dispute with Groupe Danone (see brief note by the IPKat here). Apparently Danone failed on a technicality, having failed to meet a filing deadline. As a result, the 'Wahaha' brand was ruled to belong to Danone's Chinese joint venture partner. A Danone spokesman has told the local press that it has yet to receive the ruling.

This is not the end of the story. Danone and Wahaha are also involved in proceedings with the International Arbitration Commission in Sweden; the case will be heard in mid-December. Danone has claimed that Wahaha was undermining the joint venture by producing items identical to the JV's products and then selling them outside the agreed channels. Wahaha has itself complained that Danone was trying to seize control of the Wahaha brand.

The IPKat feels that there are issues here in terms of JV negotiation and management. The parties obviously have quite different expectations as to what their cooperation was expected to achieve; IP lawyers can't remove those differences, but it is their duty to reflect as accurately as possible the intentions of the JV partners and explain to them, in advance of the agreement, what it will bind them to. Merpel adds, am I alone in finding it uncomfortable to contemplate a JV that is subject to arbitration before two different bodies, on different continents, at the same time? Or is there something missing in the news report but which explains why this should be either possible or necessary?