2025.10. 11 本文字数：2328，阅读时长大约4分钟 作者 | 第一财经 栾立、揭书宜 宗馥莉此前在采访中表示，快消行业从来都是变幻莫测的，计划不可能一成不变。很多人觉得战略就是定下五年、十 年的计划，然后照着去做。但在快消行业，消费者的喜好、市场格局、经济环境，几乎每天都在变化。一个五年前制 定的计划，放到今天很可能已经完全不适用。 宗馥莉的上述话语如今在业界看来，就是一直在以自己为中心布局，无论是娃哈哈还是"娃小宗"，都是宗馥莉在给自 己铺设一条相对最适合自己的道路，变化是一直存在的。所以她的辞职也是经历了各类复杂事件后所做的目前最适合 自己的举措。 "娃小宗"与娃哈哈是敌是友？ 曾经表示"我不会因为风波改变方向"的宗馥莉，这一次来了个"急转弯"。 第一财经记者了解到，宗馥莉已于9月12日向娃哈哈集团有限公司辞去董事长等相关职务并已通过集团股东会和董事 会的相关程序。 正式上任仅1年多、2个月前还接受媒体采访表示将搭建自己的团队的宗馥莉为何突然辞职？第一财经记者10月11日梳 理宗馥莉此前的公开言论后发现，宗馥莉的辞职与注册"娃小宗"早有端倪。 宗馥莉要坚持做自己 宗馥莉曾表示，她的" 定海神针 ...

Core Viewpoint - The resignation of Zong Fuli from her position at Wahaha Group indicates a strategic shift towards her new brand "Wawaixiong," suggesting a complex relationship between the two entities and potential competition in the future [1][4][5]. Group 1: Resignation and Strategic Shift - Zong Fuli resigned from her roles at Wahaha Group on September 12, just over a year after taking office, raising questions about her sudden departure [1]. - Her resignation aligns with the earlier registration of the "Wawaixiong" brand, hinting at a premeditated strategy to establish a new identity separate from Wahaha [1][5]. - Zong Fuli's previous statements emphasized her commitment to her vision and decision-making authority, indicating a desire to pursue her own path regardless of external pressures [3][4]. Group 2: Brand Development and Market Position - The "Wawaixiong" brand has been in development, with multiple trademarks registered by Hongsheng Group, a company controlled by Zong Fuli, covering various product categories [6]. - The transition to "Wawaixiong" is partly due to legal risks associated with the Wahaha brand, necessitating a rebranding strategy to mitigate these risks [7][8]. - Industry experts suggest that "Wawaixiong" may serve as a defensive measure for Zong Fuli, although its viability as a long-term solution remains uncertain [8]. Group 3: Corporate Structure and Relationships - The ownership structure of Wahaha Group complicates the use of its brand, with significant stakes held by various parties, including Zong Fuli and the Hangzhou municipal government [7]. - Zong Fuli's previous management challenges and the potential for conflict among shareholders may have influenced her decision to step back and focus on her new venture [7][8]. - The relationship between Wahaha and Hongsheng Group is characterized as complementary, but the emergence of "Wawaixiong" could lead to direct competition in the market [6][8].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling in favor of Yili against Mengniu highlights ongoing competition and branding issues in the dairy industry, particularly regarding packaging similarities that can confuse consumers [1][8]. Legal Dispute Summary - The Jiangsu Provincial High Court ruled that Mengniu's "Selected Pasture" milk packaging closely resembles Yili's "Jindian" packaging, constituting unfair competition. Mengniu is required to cease the infringing behavior and pay Yili 5 million yuan in damages [1][8]. - Yili requested Mengniu to publish a statement in major newspapers to mitigate the negative impact of the infringement [1]. Packaging Similarity Analysis - The packaging of Yili's "Jindian" and Mengniu's "Selected Pasture" is described as "highly similar," particularly in color scheme and layout, which could lead to consumer confusion [3][4]. - A survey indicated that 82.6% of respondents found the packaging similar, and 83.9% believed there was a connection between the two products [4]. Court Findings - The court determined that the similarity in packaging focuses on the main identifying features and overall visual effect rather than a detailed comparison of each side [6]. - The high recognition of Yili's packaging, combined with the similarities and the potential for consumer confusion, led to the conclusion that Mengniu's actions constituted unfair competition [7][8]. Historical Context of Disputes - This is not the first dispute between Yili and Mengniu over packaging. Previous cases include a 2015 ruling where Mengniu was found to have engaged in unfair competition regarding the "Future Star" yogurt [10][12]. - In 2023, Yili also sued Mengniu's subsidiary for similar reasons, resulting in Mengniu changing its packaging and paying compensation [14]. Market Position and Financial Performance - Yili's revenue for the first half of the year was 61.933 billion yuan, a 3.37% increase, while Mengniu's revenue was 41.567 billion yuan, a 6.95% decline, indicating a widening gap between the two companies [15]. - Yili's diverse business structure, including significant revenue from milk powder and ice cream, contrasts with Mengniu's reliance on liquid milk, which has seen a decline in sales [17][18].

"当时亏了钱，想把钱尽快挣回来，就通过这种方式快速借力。" 说这话的人是颜文伟，由他实际控制的四川无名餐饮管理有限公司及其关联公司通过抢注、仿冒各地老 店商标，迅速成为拥有十余个品牌、数十家门店的"碰瓷专业户"。 ▲颜文伟构建的"仿冒餐饮帝国"正在迅速瓦解。图/食事新闻视频截图 碰瓷者的行为，扰乱市场竞争秩序，损害老店利益，也损害消费者权益，应承担行政责任和民事责任。 行政责任方面，根据反不正当竞争法，监督检查部门可采取责令停止违法行为、罚款等措施，情节严重 的，并处吊销营业执照。 而在民事责任方面，如果老店的合法权益受到损害，可以向人民法院提起诉讼。赔偿数额，按照老店的 实际损失或者碰瓷者获得的利益确定。 在经历媒体连续曝光、监管部门介入、老店联合维权后，颜文伟构建的"仿冒餐饮帝国"正在迅速瓦解。 日前接受红星新闻采访时，他说了这句话。 颜文伟这么说，看似醒悟和忏悔，但这话从一个靠"快速借力"挣了大钱的人嘴里说出来，却颇有些讽刺 意味。 颜文伟接受采访时承认，"借力"方式是不道德和急功近利的。"不道德"，从其精心设计的一套程序可见 一斑： 先寻找目标，由专人筛选无商标或可擦边注册商标的高流量老店；再将打包的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the unethical and illegal practices of a restaurant management company, led by Yan Wenwei, which engaged in trademark squatting and imitation of established brands, leading to its rapid downfall due to media exposure and regulatory intervention [1][2]. Group 1: Unethical Practices - Yan Wenwei's company utilized a systematic approach to identify and exploit unregistered or similar trademarks of popular local restaurants, creating confusion among consumers [1][2]. - The company registered over 500 trademarks, many of which were not used, indicating malicious intent to hoard trademarks [1]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The actions of the company violate trademark laws, which require honesty and integrity in trademark registration and prohibit the use of unfair means to register trademarks already in use by others [1][2]. - The behavior disrupts market competition and harms both the original restaurants and consumers, leading to potential administrative and civil liabilities [3]. Group 3: Regulatory and Market Response - Regulatory bodies can impose penalties, including fines and revocation of business licenses, on companies engaging in such deceptive practices [3]. - Original restaurants can seek legal recourse for damages, with potential compensation up to five million yuan if losses are difficult to quantify [3]. Group 4: Recommendations for Prevention - Businesses need to enhance their awareness of intellectual property rights to protect against trademark squatting, particularly those with established reputations but unregistered trademarks [4][5]. - Trademark approval departments should be vigilant in monitoring for abnormal patterns of trademark registrations to prevent malicious activities [4][5].

Core Viewpoint - The final ruling in the unfair competition dispute between dairy giants Yili and Mengniu has been issued, with the court ordering Mengniu to cease its infringing activities and pay Yili 5 million yuan in damages [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Jiangsu High Court upheld the original ruling, requiring Mengniu to stop using packaging similar to Yili's "Jindian" brand, which was found to cause consumer confusion [1][4]. - The court determined that the packaging and decoration of Yili's products had gained market recognition and influence, distinguishing them from Mengniu's "Selected Pasture" product [3][4]. - This is not the first time Mengniu has been found guilty of unfair competition against Yili, with a previous case in 2017 resulting in a similar ruling [4]. Group 2: Financial Performance - For the first half of 2025, Mengniu reported a revenue decline of 6.95% to 41.567 billion yuan, with a net profit drop of 16.37% to 2.046 billion yuan [5]. - In contrast, Yili's revenue increased by 3.37% to 61.933 billion yuan, although its net profit decreased by 4.39% to 7.2 billion yuan [5]. - The competitive landscape between the two dairy giants may shift due to Mengniu's declining performance and recent legal setbacks [5].

Core Viewpoint - OpenAI has responded strongly to the lawsuit filed by xAI, denying all allegations of trade secret theft and accusing xAI of abusing legal rights to intimidate employees [1][3][4]. Group 1: Allegations by xAI - xAI has made three main allegations against OpenAI: violation of federal trade secret protection laws, intentional interference with xAI's economic relationships with employees, and violation of California's unfair competition laws [4]. - Specific incidents cited include the alleged theft of trade secrets by former xAI engineer Xuechen Li, who is accused of sharing confidential materials during the hiring process with OpenAI [4][5]. - Another engineer, Jimmy Fraiture, is also accused of transferring source code to personal devices during his "garden leave" period, indicating an intent to cover up his actions [5][10]. Group 2: OpenAI's Response - OpenAI has categorically denied all allegations, asserting that Xuechen Li never officially joined the company and did not transfer any confidential information [12][14]. - OpenAI claims that the actions of Fraiture during his garden leave were personal and not directed by OpenAI, and there is no evidence that he transferred any proprietary information [14][15]. - Regarding the unnamed former senior finance executive from xAI, OpenAI stated that the individual left xAI due to refusing to participate in "improper financial operations," and their subsequent hiring was unrelated to any alleged poaching [15][16]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - OpenAI has filed a motion to dismiss xAI's lawsuit, arguing that the claims are baseless and intended to intimidate current and potential employees [17][18]. - A hearing for this motion is scheduled for November 18, which will address procedural aspects rather than the substantive issues of the case [18].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the manipulation of hotel prices on travel booking platforms, driven by an algorithmic tool called "Price Adjustment Assistant," which undermines the pricing autonomy of small and medium-sized businesses while consolidating the market power of these platforms [2][5][8]. Group 1: Price Fluctuations and Consumer Experience - Consumers have reported erratic price changes on booking platforms, leading to suspicions of unfair practices [3][4]. - Many users feel that the price variations do not align with market demand, and some have expressed frustration over not receiving the expected value for their expenditures [3][4]. - Hotel operators have also experienced unexpected price adjustments made by platforms, which they claim result in financial losses [4][5]. Group 2: Impact on Small and Medium-Sized Businesses - The "Price Adjustment Assistant" tool allows platforms to automatically modify hotel prices without notifying the operators, impacting their business operations [4][5]. - Some hotel owners have reported that their prices are adjusted to be lower than competitors, often without their consent, which can lead to unsustainable business practices [4][6]. - The platforms' commission rates, typically ranging from 10% to 15%, further exacerbate the financial strain on these businesses [6][8]. Group 3: Regulatory Concerns and Market Dynamics - Regulatory bodies have begun to take action against platforms like Ctrip for violating e-commerce laws and engaging in unfair competition practices [5][8]. - The article discusses the dual role of platforms as both arbiters and participants in the market, which creates a conflict of interest and can lead to market chaos [7][8]. - Experts suggest that new regulations aimed at curbing unfair competition will take effect soon, which may help restore balance in the market [8][9]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - Industry experts recommend that regulatory authorities conduct audits of platform algorithms to ensure compliance with market regulations and to understand the extent of data manipulation [9]. - There is a call for platforms to enhance user experience while also addressing the legitimate concerns of small and medium-sized businesses [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a legal ruling in favor of Jinmen, a leading AI investment research platform, against XunTu Technology for unfair competition, emphasizing the importance of compliance and ethical standards in the securities industry [2][5][10]. Group 1: Legal Ruling Details - The Shanghai Pudong New District People's Court ordered XunTu Technology to immediately cease its unfair competition practices and remove all unauthorized online roadshow meeting data from its platforms [5][6]. - XunTu Technology is required to compensate Jinmen for economic losses of 4 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan within ten days of the ruling [5][6]. - The court mandated XunTu to publish a statement on its website and app to mitigate the negative impact caused by its actions, with the statement subject to court review [5][6]. Group 2: Court's Key Findings - The court highlighted that all online roadshow meeting data, including audio, transcripts, and AI-generated summaries, must be removed as they were shared without permission [6][10]. - The ruling emphasized that unauthorized copying and public sharing of online roadshow content violate compliance and ethical standards in the securities industry [7][9]. - The court noted that the use of AI technology does not justify unfair competition, as the tools used do not affect the legality of competitive behavior [11][13]. Group 3: Industry Implications - Jinmen's adherence to compliance and ethical standards has established its market position, which is crucial for maintaining competitive advantages in the securities industry [21]. - The article warns other industry players against engaging in similar unfair practices, urging them to respect intellectual property and uphold fair competition [17][20]. - The court's decision serves as a reminder that the duration and extent of infringement will be considered in assessing the severity of competitive misconduct [18][19].

Core Viewpoint - The China Household Electrical Appliances Association has issued an initiative to strengthen self-discipline and fair competition in the home appliance industry, aiming to create a fair market environment and eliminate chaotic practices such as disorderly low-price competition and false advertising [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Industry Self-Discipline - The initiative focuses on issues such as excessive low-price competition, commercial defamation, false advertising, and employee rights protection [2]. - It emphasizes principles of fair competition, mutual respect, collaborative sharing, and high-quality development to promote healthy industry growth [2]. - The association has previously issued self-discipline agreements, with the first one dating back to 2011, indicating a long-standing concern for fair competition [2][3]. Market Environment and Trends - The home appliance industry is experiencing intensified competition due to market saturation, particularly in major appliances and kitchen appliances [5]. - According to AVC data, the retail sales of all home appliance categories (excluding 3C) are projected to reach 907.1 billion in 2024, a 6.4% increase year-on-year, marking a new record since 2019 [5]. - The implementation of policies such as "old-for-new" has boosted sales but has also led to increased market anxiety among smaller enterprises, prompting some to engage in excessive low-price competition [5][6]. Sales Pressure and Competition - Recent data indicates a significant decline in the home appliance market since September, with online retail sales dropping by 16.0% year-on-year during a specific monitoring period [6]. - The association's initiative comes at a critical time, as companies are likely to intensify competition during major sales events like National Day and Double Eleven [6]. - The need for the industry to avoid improper competitive behaviors under sales pressure is emphasized to prevent further deterioration of the market environment [6]. Policy Recommendations - Suggestions include optimizing subsidy policies to link them with product quality and enhancing market supervision to address frequent quality issues [7]. - Establishing a blacklist for brands involved in fraudulent activities related to subsidies is also recommended to maintain market integrity [7].