Core Insights - The article highlights consumer complaints regarding counterfeit products from the traditional Chinese medicine brand "Beijing Tongrentang," specifically the absence of the "Double Dragon Mark" on purchased items [2] - It discusses the existence of multiple trademarks associated with Beijing Tongrentang, including those owned by its subsidiaries, which have led to confusion among consumers [2] - The article emphasizes the legal implications of trademark usage and the responsibilities of Beijing Tongrentang regarding the products sold under its name [3][4] Trademark Issues - Consumers have reported purchasing products that claim to be from Beijing Tongrentang but lack the official "Double Dragon Mark," leading to concerns about authenticity [2] - Several subsidiaries of Beijing Tongrentang, such as Beijing Tongrentang Xingan Health and Beijing Tongrentang (Sichuan) Pharmaceutical, have been found to use similar branding, which can mislead consumers [2] - Legal experts indicate that the use of the Beijing Tongrentang name by these subsidiaries may still constitute trademark infringement, as it can create confusion among consumers [3] Brand Management and Consumer Trust - The article suggests that consumers should verify product packaging to ensure they are purchasing items directly from the parent company to avoid counterfeit or substandard products [4] - It points out a conflict between maintaining brand integrity and the financial interests of the parent company and its subsidiaries, which may lead to potential quality control issues [4] - The ongoing situation could force Beijing Tongrentang to reconsider its branding strategy if significant quality issues arise from products sold under its name [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses consumer complaints regarding counterfeit products from the traditional Chinese medicine brand "Beijing Tongrentang," highlighting issues with trademark usage and brand integrity [3]. Group 1: Trademark Issues - Multiple trademarks related to "Beijing Tongrentang" exist, including those owned by subsidiaries like Beijing Tongrentang Xingan Health and Beijing Tongrentang (Sichuan) Pharmaceutical [3][4]. - The parent company, Tongrentang Group, has stated that it has never authorized its subsidiaries to use the "Tongrentang" trademark for external business activities, indicating potential trademark infringement by these subsidiaries [3][5]. Group 2: Product Quality Concerns - Products offered by the subsidiaries primarily include health drinks claiming to be "medicinal food," but only those with the "Double Dragon Mark" are permitted to be sold as medicines by the parent company [4]. - Legal experts suggest that the way subsidiaries use the "Beijing Tongrentang" name on their products could mislead consumers, potentially implicating the parent company in any quality or advertising issues that arise [5][6]. Group 3: Brand Integrity and Consumer Trust - The situation reflects a conflict between maintaining the core value of the Beijing Tongrentang brand and the financial interests of its subsidiaries [6]. - Consumers are advised to verify product packaging to ensure they are purchasing items directly from the parent company to avoid counterfeit or substandard products [6].

游云庭分析称，作为上级公司，北京同仁堂虽然对外声称对外没有贴牌，但作为医药领域的公司，不可能不知道下属公司对外授权时产品包装对于北京同仁 堂的使用方式，而这种使用方式，虽然也可以解释为公司名称权或者字号权，但从消费者认知的角度，依然是在使用北京同仁堂的商标。 "因此，使用'内廷上用'，'朕皇'等商标的产品如果发生质量问题，或者虚假宣传问题，北京同仁堂公司实际也是负有一定责任的。"他向第一财经记者表 示。 近日，第一财经记者注意到网上有不少消费者抱怨为了买老字号中药品牌"北京同仁堂"的产品，在网上选了又选，但最后还是买到了"假的同仁堂"——没 有"双龙标"。 基于上述分析，游云庭认为，如果消费者真正信赖的是北京同仁堂这个商标的，需要在购买之前，查看产品的包装，选择母公司出品的产品，否则就有可能 买到其下级公司授权第三方生产的产品，也就是所谓的"贴牌产品"。 为此，记者从互联网电商平台上搜索"北京同仁堂"发现，确实存在多个"北京同仁堂"商标，例如北京同仁堂兴安保健拥有的"内廷上用"相关商标，以及北京 同仁堂（四川）药业拥有的"朕皇"相关商标。 他进一步分析称，北京同仁堂商标事件的本质是北京同仁堂母公司在维护品牌核 ...

Core Viewpoint - The competition between the brands "娃小智" and "娃小宗" intensifies as宗馥莉 returns to Wahaha, with her uncle宗泽后 launching "娃小智" for nationwide recruitment, while "娃小宗" is put on hold due to trademark disputes and internal power struggles within the company [1][3][5]. Group 1: Brand Competition - "娃小宗" was halted just 41 days after its announcement, indicating internal conflicts and potential trademark compliance issues [3]. - "娃小智" was launched on the same day宗馥莉 regained the trademark rights to "娃哈哈," suggesting a strategic move to counter "娃小宗" [5]. - "娃小智" claims to offer products with the same formulas as "娃哈哈" but at lower prices, aiming to attract customers and distributors [6]. Group 2: Financial and Operational Challenges - The macroeconomic environment and competitive pressures raise questions about whether Wahaha can achieve its ambitious revenue target of 50 billion yuan in 2024 [1][7]. - The macroeconomic environment and competitive pressures raise questions about whether Wahaha can achieve its ambitious revenue target of 50 billion yuan in 2024 [1][7]. - The company faces challenges in maintaining distributor confidence, as the recent changes have led to hesitance in payment of deposits by distributors [8]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - Competitors like Nongfu Spring and Yibao are increasing their market presence, putting additional pressure on Wahaha [7]. - The beverage market remains large, providing opportunities for both "娃小宗" and "娃小智," but the ongoing internal conflicts may lead to a loss of market share [8].

Core Viewpoint - The competition between the brands "Wahaha" and "Wawa Xiaozhi" intensifies as the return of Zong Fuli to Wahaha leads to strategic moves from both sides, with "Wawa Xiaozhi" aggressively seeking distributors while "Wawa Xiaozong" is temporarily halted due to internal conflicts and external pressures [1][3][5]. Group 1: Brand Competition - Zong Fuli's return to Wahaha has sparked a rivalry with her uncle Zong Zehou, whose brand "Wawa Xiaozhi" has launched a nationwide recruitment for distributors [1][5]. - "Wawa Xiaozhi" aims to differentiate itself from Wahaha, despite having similar product lines, and claims to offer lower prices than Wahaha [6][7]. - The launch of "Wawa Xiaozhi" comes shortly after the announcement of "Wawa Xiaozong," which has been put on hold, indicating a strategic retreat amid brand conflicts [3][4]. Group 2: Financial and Operational Challenges - Wahaha's revenue target for 2024 is questioned, with a need to achieve 50 billion yuan in revenue, amidst increasing competition from brands like Nongfu Spring and Yibao [1][7]. - The macroeconomic environment and internal management issues pose significant challenges for Wahaha, particularly as it approaches year-end performance evaluations [7][8]. - The requirement for distributors to pay deposits and the signing of sales agreements for 2026 indicates a tightening of operational controls within the company [7][8]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - The beverage market remains competitive, with major players like Nongfu Spring ramping up promotional activities as the shopping season approaches [7]. - Analysts suggest that the ongoing internal strife within Wahaha and the broader industry competition could hinder the brand's recovery and growth prospects [8]. - The large size of the beverage market may provide opportunities for both "Wawa Xiaozhi" and "Wawa Xiaozong," as distributors adapt to the changing landscape [8].

Core Viewpoint - Shanghai Wahaha Drinking Water Co., Ltd. has launched a new brand "Hu Xiao Wa" for bottled water due to brand authorization disputes and operational challenges stemming from the ongoing inheritance dispute involving the founder's family [1][7]. Company Overview - Shanghai Wahaha Drinking Water Co., Ltd. has been operational for over 20 years without incurring losses, with last year's revenue exceeding 120 million yuan, ranking among the top three in Shanghai's bottled water market [3][7]. - The company is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Wahaha Industrial Co., Ltd., which holds a 70% stake, while internal employees own approximately 31.5% and social capital holds about 25.5% [3][4]. Brand and Trademark Issues - The "Wahaha" trademarks authorized to Shanghai Wahaha expired in 2021 and 2023, leading to the company's inability to continue using the "Wahaha" brand [7][12]. - Following the expiration, Wahaha Group requested the cessation of the use of the "Wahaha" brand, and the company has since faced challenges in communication with the group's leadership [6][12]. Legal and Operational Challenges - The Hong Kong High Court recently rejected an appeal by the defendants represented by Zong Fuli, adding to the operational difficulties faced by Shanghai Wahaha [1]. - The company has been under scrutiny from Wahaha Group's shareholders, who have expressed disapproval of the current situation and have even suggested bankruptcy proceedings [6][12]. Future Brand Strategy - Due to the trademark issues, both Zong Fuli and the macro victory group are reportedly preparing to adopt a new brand, "Wa Xiao Zong," starting from the 2026 sales year [12][13]. - The internal documents from the macro victory group indicate a strategic shift to ensure compliance and address historical legacy issues related to the brand [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The recent launch of the "沪小娃" brand by Shanghai Wahaha Drinking Water Co., Ltd. is a response to brand authorization disputes and operational challenges faced by the company, which has historically been profitable and is now seeking to adapt to changing circumstances [1][7]. Company Overview - Shanghai Wahaha Drinking Water Co., Ltd. has been operational for over 20 years without incurring losses, with revenue exceeding 1.2 billion yuan last year [3][7]. - The company is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Wahaha Industry Co., Ltd., which holds a 70% stake, while the remaining 30% is owned by its chairman, Zong Wei [4][6]. Brand and Trademark Issues - The "娃哈哈" trademarks used by Shanghai Wahaha have expired, leading to the necessity of creating a new brand [8][11]. - The Wahaha Group has requested the cessation of the use of the "娃哈哈" brand, and there are indications that Zong Wei has been unable to contact Zong Fuli, the representative of the Wahaha Group, to resolve these issues [6][7]. Future Brand Strategy - There are plans for the Wahaha Group to potentially adopt a new brand, "娃小宗," starting from the 2026 sales year, as part of a strategy to address historical trademark issues [13][14]. - The trademark for "娃小宗" is currently owned by the Hongsheng Group, which indicates a shift in branding strategy for the company [14].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing dispute between Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company and Guangzhou Old Brand Investment Holding Company over the use of the "Lianxianglou" trademark has led to complaints from distributors and the removal of mooncakes from e-commerce platforms [1][2][9]. Group 1: Trademark Dispute - Guangzhou Old Brand Investment Holding Company claims that unauthorized merchants have been selling products under the "Lianxianglou" trademark without permission, prompting them to request the removal of these products from online stores [1][9]. - Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company asserts that it has the right to sell its mooncakes online but must adhere to the terms of its agreement with the trademark owner [10] and has indicated a willingness to seek legal resolution if necessary [8][15]. Group 2: Legal Background - The trademark ownership and licensing issues stem from a 2006 agreement where Guangzhou Xiguan Shijia Garden Restaurant Company acquired 99% of Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company, which included the rights to operate the brand [15][16]. - Legal representatives have stated that Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company has the right to authorize its distributors to sell its products both online and offline, as the original agreement does not restrict online operations [15][16]. Group 3: Market Impact - The dispute has caused confusion among distributors, with some receiving threats to remove their listings unless they comply with the demands of Guangzhou Old Brand Investment Holding Company [2][8]. - The ongoing legal battles and disputes over trademark usage have implications for brand reputation and market positioning, as both companies navigate the complexities of trademark law and consumer perception [17][20].

Core Viewpoint - Zhejiang Shenghua Yunfeng New Material Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Yunfeng New Material") faces challenges in its IPO journey due to regulatory warnings and internal control issues, leading to the termination of its listing application by the Shanghai Stock Exchange [1][3][5]. Company Overview - Yunfeng New Material was established in 1995 and primarily produces engineered wood products, including artificial boards, wooden floors, and customized home products such as wardrobes and cabinets [1]. - The company submitted its IPO application in March 2023, which was accepted by the Shanghai Stock Exchange, but it withdrew the application in April 2023 after receiving multiple regulatory warnings [1][3]. Regulatory Warnings - The company received three regulatory warnings from the Shanghai Stock Exchange, highlighting issues such as failure to disclose that certain distributors and OEM suppliers were controlled by the same individual [2][3][5]. - The warnings also pointed out discrepancies between the actual internal control systems and the statements made in the IPO application regarding research and development management [4][5]. Revenue and Profitability - Yunfeng New Material's revenue from 2021 to 2024 shows a growth trend, with revenues of approximately 2.36 billion, 2.67 billion, 3.43 billion, and 1.63 billion respectively [9]. - The net profit for the same periods was approximately 224 million, 245 million, 320 million, and 149 million respectively, indicating a positive growth trajectory [9]. - However, the company faces a risk of declining gross margins, with main business gross margins decreasing from 22.73% in 2021 to 19.30% in 2024 [9]. Trademark Licensing Revenue - Trademark licensing has become a significant source of profit for Yunfeng New Material, contributing nearly 50% of the gross profit by 2023, despite accounting for only about 10% of total revenue [10]. - The gross profit from trademark licensing fees was 344 million in 2023, with a gross margin of approximately 99% [10]. - The reliance on trademark licensing for profitability raises concerns, as the main business segments, such as engineered wood products, have much lower gross margins [10]. Distribution and Sales Channels - The company primarily utilizes a distributor model for sales, with over 90% of its main business revenue generated through this channel [7]. - There are concerns regarding the fairness of pricing in transactions involving distributors, as some prices significantly exceed average market rates [8]. Internal Control Issues - Internal control deficiencies have been identified, particularly in the management of research and development materials, which were not properly documented [4][5]. - The presence of former employees and relatives of major shareholders among the distributors raises questions about the legitimacy and transparency of the distribution network [7].