曾因 "王老吉" 商标缠斗多年的 加多宝 集团（以下简称加多宝）和广州王老吉大健康产业 有限公司（以下简称 王老吉 ）日前再度交锋，这次事关 "王老吉"海外商标归属权。 9月30日，王老吉发布声明，指责加多宝通过海外离岸公司进行恶意注册"王老吉"境外商 标。 这场争议正值 王老吉推出"WALOVI"标识国际罐 加速出海之际，双方在海外市场的竞争再 度升温。 打响海外商标争夺战 对此，加多宝10月10日发布声明予以反击。公司表示，其在2000年代合法取得海外"王老 吉"商标所有权，目前已在全球60个主要国家和地区注册了"王老吉"商标。 加多宝与王老吉针对"王老吉"海外商标归属问题正展开"唇枪舌战"。 10月10日，加多宝集团发布声明，宣称拥有海外"王老吉"商标所有权。该声明称，加多宝 自20世纪90年代从王老吉后人手中取得祖传凉茶秘方及海外商标使用权，并于2000年代初 合法获得海外"王老吉"商标所有权。加多宝强调，目前已在全球60多个主要国家和地区注 册了"王老吉"商标。 而早在9月30日，王老吉发表声明称，加多宝通过海外离岸关联公司万捷有限公司在全球 60余个国家和地区进行恶意注册。王老吉强调，截至2025 ...

【导读】因 "王老吉"海外商标归属权， 加多宝与王老吉再度开战 见习记者 夏天 曾因 "王老吉" 商标缠斗多年的 加多宝 集团（以下简称加多宝）和广州王老吉大健康产业有 限公司（以下简称 王老吉 ）日前再度交锋，这次事关 "王老吉"海外商标归属权。 9月30日，王老吉发布声明，指责加多宝通过海外离岸公司进行恶意注册"王老吉"境外商标。 对此，加多宝10月10日发布声明予以反击。公司表示，其在2000年代合法取得海外"王老 吉"商标所有权，目前已在全球60个主要国家和地区注册了"王老吉"商标。 对此，王老吉方面回应称，已在21个国家/地区对加多宝关联公司的商标注册行为发起维权挑 战，其中10个国家/地区的审理机关已作出撤销加多宝商标的决定。王老吉特别指出，澳门特 别行政区终审法院在判决书中明确表示：若商标注册仅为"排除他人使用"而保留权利，即便 象征性使用，也不构成"认真使用"要件，因此其商标应予撤销。 商标争夺战持续多年 这场争议正值 王老吉推出"WALOVI"标识国际罐 加速出海之际，双方在海外市场的竞争再度 升温。 打响海外商标争夺战 加多宝与王老吉针对"王老吉"海外商标归属问题正展开"唇枪舌战"。 10 ...

Core Viewpoint - The legal battle between Chinese food delivery giants Didi's 99Food and Meituan's Keeta in Brazil centers around trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, highlighting the intense competition in the Brazilian food delivery market [1][3][9]. Group 1: Legal Disputes - 99Food has filed a lawsuit against Keeta, alleging trademark infringement due to similarities in branding, including color, graphics, and font [1][3]. - Keeta has previously filed two lawsuits against 99Food, claiming unfair competition and consumer confusion due to 99Food's high-cost keyword purchases on Google [6][9]. - The Brazilian court has already issued an injunction against 99Food in one of Keeta's lawsuits, while the second case is still pending [6][9]. Group 2: Market Competition - The competition between Didi's 99Food and Meituan's Keeta has escalated, with both companies launching operations in Brazil within a short timeframe [9][10]. - 99Food has invested 500 million Brazilian Reais (approximately 650 million RMB) in its Brazilian operations, while Keeta plans to invest 5.6 billion Brazilian Reais (approximately 730 million RMB) over five years [9][10]. - iFood, the leading local competitor, holds an 80% market share in Brazil's food delivery sector and is responding to the competition by planning to invest 17 billion Brazilian Reais (approximately 22.1 billion RMB) by March 2026 [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The competition in the food delivery industry has shifted to Brazil, where two Chinese companies, 99food and keeta, are engaging in aggressive tactics against each other, reminiscent of domestic market practices, which may ultimately benefit the local leader, iFood [1][6]. Group 1: Market Context - Brazil has a population of over 200 million and a diverse economy, making it an attractive market for international companies, including those from China [1]. - The food delivery penetration rate in Brazil is only 30%, indicating significant growth potential compared to China's over 50% [2]. Group 2: Competitive Landscape - iFood, a local player, holds an 80% market share and has previously used aggressive tactics to eliminate competition, including a "choose one" strategy that forced 99food out of the market [2][6]. - The entry of both 99food and keeta into the Brazilian market has led to intense competition, with both companies employing aggressive strategies against each other [3]. Group 3: Aggressive Tactics - 99food has implemented several strategies to undermine keeta, including purchasing Google search keywords to redirect users to its platform, signing exclusive agreements with local restaurants, and filing lawsuits against keeta for alleged trademark infringement [4]. - Keeta has responded with its own legal actions, claiming that 99food's tactics constitute unfair competition [4]. Group 4: Implications for Chinese Companies - The ongoing competition between these two Chinese companies in Brazil reflects a troubling trend of replicating domestic cutthroat competition in international markets, which could harm the overall image of Chinese enterprises [6]. - The situation raises concerns about whether these companies are attempting to circumvent domestic regulatory pressures by engaging in aggressive tactics abroad [6][7].