Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the confusion and risks associated with the purchase of erectile dysfunction (ED) medications, particularly focusing on the brand name "Viagra" and its misuse in the market, leading to consumer deception and health risks [2][9][50]. Group 1: Market Confusion - The term "伟哥" (Weige) has become a generic term for ED medications in China, leading to a proliferation of misleading products and advertisements [21][32]. - A significant portion of complaints related to "伟哥" includes false advertising (28%), product mismatches (20%), and counterfeit or unregulated products (19%) [9][45]. - The commercialization of "伟哥" has resulted in a disconnect between the original drug, Viagra, and the various products marketed under the same name, creating a chaotic marketplace [20][40]. Group 2: Historical Context - Viagra, originally approved by the FDA in 1998 as a cardiovascular drug, became the first oral PDE-5 inhibitor for ED treatment, significantly impacting both medical and cultural perceptions [15][18]. - The introduction of Viagra to the Chinese market in 2000 marked the beginning of a complex relationship between the drug's medical use and its cultural symbolism [19][20]. - The brand name "万艾可" (Wan Aike) was established for Viagra in China, while "伟哥" became a separate trademark owned by a domestic company, leading to brand confusion [25][36]. Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Issues - Legal disputes have arisen over whether "伟哥" should be considered a generic term, with the National Intellectual Property Administration ruling that it retains its trademark status [38]. - Pfizer has attempted to assert that "伟哥" is a well-known trademark, but courts have not consistently supported this claim [39][40]. - The fragmentation of trademark rights has contributed to ongoing brand confusion and legal challenges in the market [37]. Group 4: Consumer Risks - Consumers face significant risks when purchasing ED medications online, including exposure to counterfeit products and unregulated substances that may contain harmful ingredients [46][59]. - The lack of clear labeling and the prevalence of misleading marketing tactics complicate the consumer's ability to make informed choices [44][45]. - The article emphasizes the importance of purchasing medications through legitimate channels and verifying product authenticity to mitigate health risks [54][60].

Core Viewpoint - The trademark dispute between Wanglaoji and JDB has extended to the global market, with both companies claiming ownership of the "Wanglaoji" trademark overseas, leading to escalating tensions and legal actions [1][4]. Group 1: Trademark Ownership Claims - JDB claims to have registered the "Wanglaoji" trademark in over 60 countries and regions worldwide, emphasizing its legal victories in Canada and the EU [2][4]. - Wanglaoji asserts that the trademark belongs to Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., with a clear historical lineage and legal documentation supporting their claim [4][10]. - As of September 30, Wanglaoji has completed trademark registrations in over 100 countries and regions, while JDB's claims are characterized as "malicious registration" by Wanglaoji [4][10]. Group 2: Legal Actions and Responses - The dispute intensified after JDB announced its overseas trademark victories on September 30, prompting Wanglaoji to issue a statement accusing JDB of misleading the public [2][4]. - Following a series of legal battles in China, a court ruled in 2023 that JDB infringed on Wanglaoji's trademark rights, ordering JDB to pay 317 million yuan in damages [10]. - The ongoing trademark battle is seen as a strategic move by both companies to secure their positions in the shrinking domestic market while expanding internationally [10]. Group 3: Market Strategies - JDB has established a production base overseas since 2016, achieving approximately 10% of its sales from international markets [10]. - Wanglaoji is actively working to make international sales a significant part of its revenue, aiming for a single market to contribute around 1 billion yuan [12]. - Both companies have adopted different strategies for their foreign trademarks, with JDB using names that resonate with overseas Chinese consumers, while Wanglaoji has introduced the "WALOVI" brand to establish an independent international identity [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The trademark dispute between Jia Duo Bao and Wang Lao Ji has intensified, particularly focusing on overseas trademark rights, as both companies seek to expand in international markets amid slowing domestic growth in the herbal tea sector [1][3][4]. Trademark Dispute Background - The conflict stems from a historical agreement where Li Yimin, former general manager of Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group, facilitated the transfer of the "Wang Lao Ji" trademark to Jia Duo Bao's parent company, Hongdao Group, in exchange for bribes totaling HKD 3 million [1][11][15]. - Following the exposure of Li Yimin's bribery case, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group reassessed the licensing agreements, claiming the trademark was undervalued, with usage fees at only 0.03% of sales compared to the industry norm of 5%-30% [1][16][17]. Recent Developments - On September 29, Jia Duo Bao announced victories in multiple lawsuits in Canada and the EU, asserting its rights to the "Wang Lao Ji" trademark in over 60 countries through its subsidiary, Multi Access Limited [4][20]. - Conversely, Wang Lao Ji's parent company, Baiyunshan, issued a statement disputing Jia Duo Bao's claims, asserting that the trademark ownership is clear and legally documented [5][4]. Market Context - The herbal tea industry in China is experiencing a slowdown, with market growth rates declining significantly from 16.7% in 2012 to a mere 6.8% projected over the next five years [20][19]. - In contrast, the global plant beverage market is booming, with a compound annual growth rate of nearly 10% from 2019 to 2024, particularly in emerging markets like Southeast Asia [22][26]. Financial Performance - Baiyunshan reported a 12.7% decline in revenue from its health segment, which primarily includes Wang Lao Ji, with total revenue around CNY 9.7 billion for 2024 [21]. - In the first half of 2025, Wang Lao Ji's health segment showed signs of recovery, with a revenue increase of 8.38% to CNY 6.5 billion, and a net profit rise of 15.87% [24]. Strategic Moves - Wang Lao Ji is actively pursuing international expansion, launching the new overseas brand "WALOVI" and registering it in over 100 countries [5][22]. - The ongoing trademark battle is crucial for Jia Duo Bao, as securing overseas rights could enhance its market position and attract potential investors amid plans for a Hong Kong IPO [26].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing trademark dispute between Wanglaoji and JDB (Jiangsu Dahe Beverage) has escalated, focusing on overseas trademark rights, with both companies asserting their claims in various international markets [2][4]. Group 1: Trademark Dispute Background - The trademark conflict between Wanglaoji and JDB has been ongoing for over a decade, involving issues of trademark licensing, commercial packaging, and advertising slogans [2][3]. - Wanglaoji's brand has a history dating back to the Qing Dynasty, and it became a national beverage during its operation under JDB [3]. - The initial trademark licensing agreement between Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group and JDB was signed in the 1990s, with subsequent contracts leading to disputes over their validity due to alleged bribery [3][4]. Group 2: Recent Developments - JDB claims to have successfully defended its overseas trademark rights in multiple lawsuits, asserting ownership of the Wanglaoji brand in over 60 countries [2][5]. - Wanglaoji has countered these claims, accusing JDB of malicious trademark registration and has initiated legal actions in 21 countries, with some rulings already in its favor [6][5]. - The legal status of JDB's overseas trademark registrations varies by country, with some jurisdictions recognizing its legitimacy while others do not [6]. Group 3: Market Expansion Strategies - Both companies are aggressively pursuing international market expansion, with Wanglaoji launching a new brand name "WALOVI" to cater to global consumers [7][8]. - Wanglaoji's overseas market has seen a 6.5-fold growth over the past decade, with a compound annual growth rate exceeding 25% [7]. - JDB's international strategy appears more subdued, yet it continues to expand its marketing channels and product reach globally [8]. Group 4: Industry Trends - The global plant-based beverage market is experiencing significant growth, with a compound annual growth rate of nearly 10% from 2019 to 2024 [7]. - The competition in the herbal tea segment is intensifying, with both companies needing to adapt to changing consumer preferences and market dynamics [9]. - Analysts suggest that the trademark dispute is a reflection of the broader challenges faced by Chinese companies in international markets, emphasizing the importance of trademark rights in global expansion efforts [9].

Core Viewpoint - The company "Zongshen Intelligent Travel" issued an apology for allegedly infringing on the trademark rights of "Wenjie," "Zhijie," and "Shangjie," acknowledging the misunderstanding caused to the public and brand owners [1]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - The company recognized the inappropriate content published and has taken immediate action to rectify product naming, removing and ceasing the dissemination of all related controversial content [1]. - The company has committed to strengthening its internal review mechanisms to prevent future infringements on intellectual property rights [1]. Group 2: Product Launch and Market Presence - Zongshen held a product launch event on July 8, showcasing 128 new products and core components, although only one model, the "Zongshen Zhike S1," was officially released at the event [4][5]. - The company has previously named its electric three-wheeled vehicles with names like "Pili," "Hanjun," and "Fengbao," while its three-wheeled motorcycle products have names such as "Hongyun Dantou" and "Jinyun Lai" [5]. Group 3: Trademark and Brand Context - "Wenjie" and "Zhijie" are brands under Hongmeng Zhixing, with "Wenjie" being a collaboration between Huawei and Seres, and "Zhijie" a collaboration between Huawei and Chery [5]. - Chery Automobile Co., Ltd. registered the "Zhijie" trademark in 2020, while Seres holds multiple trademarks related to "Wenjie," classified under transportation tools [5]. Group 4: Financial Performance - Zongshen Power's 2024 annual report indicated a revenue of 10.384 billion yuan, representing a year-on-year growth of 29.84%, and a net profit of 461 million yuan, up 27.45% year-on-year [6]. - The company's stock price saw a significant increase, with an annual growth rate of nearly 300% in 2024 [6].

北京市中伦律师事务所 关于上海开开实业股份有限公司 2024 年度向特定对象发行 A 股股票的 补充法律意见书（一） $$\Xi{\cal O}\,{\underline{{{-\,}}}}\,\mathbb{H}\,\mathbb{E}\,{\underline{{{-\,}}}}\,\mathbb{H}$$ | 第一部分 关于《审核问询函》的回复 3 | | --- | | 《审核问询函》问题 5.1 3 | | 第二部分 本次发行的相关事项更新 8 | | 一、 本次发行的批准和授权 8 | | 二、 发行人本次发行的主体资格 11 | | 三、 本次发行的实质条件 11 | | 四、 发行人的设立 16 | | 五、 发行人的独立性 16 | | 六、 发行人的控股股东及实际控制人 17 | | 七、 发行人的股本及演变 20 | | 八、 发行人的业务 20 | | 九、 关联交易及同业竞争 25 | | 十、 发行人的主要财产 30 | | 十一、 发行人的重大债权债务 33 | | 十二、 发行人重大资产变化及收购兼并 35 | | 十三、 发行人章程修改 36 | | 十四、 发行人股东大会、 ...