The Reuters article said the lawyers spoke to “reporters”, which suggests that this was article was generated from a press conference. If so, Danone had some specific messages it wanted to get across. I can’t imagine “we dropped the ball” was one of them. Normally, you would do some preparation on the messaging and Q&A for any press conference, let alone one tied to an enormous, brand-damaging legal disaster. Perhaps someone didn’t spend enough time studying the playbook?

Thanks.

I think Wahaha has cleared the “we tried” test as both parties readily have admitted that the first application was turned down.

But after so many years, one would have though a second attempt would have been made.

Hopefully they had a “what if” clause and thanks for bringing that up – it definately would allow there case to have more merit.

R

Clearly Wahaha was going about its business with impunity with no fear that Danone can do much about it. Danone can only blame themselves for failing to perform due diligence.

All of this assumes many facts that I cannot confirm. Perhaps the most important is whether the JV Contract specifies what happens if a government approval is not forthcoming. Good agreements should outline this “what if” scenario in detail so that both parties know their rights and responsibilities in the case something goes wrong with something like a trademark assignment.

Not sure if I’ve answered the question, but I’m already speculating too much based on incomplete info.

No response necessary to what Chris said. Preaching to the choir here. Sadly, most companies simply do not want to pay anything for a corporate or IP audit until they are engaged in a financial transaction and are forced to do so.

I hate to point this out, but there is a lawyer to blame for this somewhere!

I have been pretty harsh on Danone because they got played and a culture of “beware of your JV partner” has kick in all over again when it should be “beware of your own incompetence”.

From your perspective (I asked on All Roads), what impact does this ruling have on all the other cases pending in CA and Europe? Is the fact that Danone (or its JVP) technically did not have possession (and therefore control) of the trademark material to everything else (i.e. Zong was not supposed to use the trademark without the approval of Danone)?

R