|
Friday, September 7, 2007 12:00am — GLOBAL IP STRATEGY, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF IP Chinese JVs - what not to doThe China Law Blog has a great post and article about the Danone v Wahaha dispute in China. Basically - like many foreign multinationals before it, Danone came to China looking for an easy joint venture without understanding how things work there. The only contribution by Wahaha to the JV was it's popular brand 'Wahaha' and the associated trade mark registration. However, the Chinese IP Office rejected the transfer to the JV. The parties instead created an exclusive license, without fully restructuring the deal and thought it would all be ok. Except that it wasn't because the relationship fell apart (but that's another story). Here are the China Law Blog's top lessons to be learned about Chinese JV's from the dispute:
These are good points for all JV's, not only in China. One of the striking things about the dispute is the lack of sophistication with which the IP issues were dealt with. A similar mistake was made by Pepsi over Blue Storm (see Blue Storm rains on Pepsi's China party). What do you think? Post a Comment | Permalink | + del.icio.us 3 CommentsDuncan saidHi Jeremy - Great point and a really interesting suggestion. posted on Sunday, September 9, 2007 9:36pm Duncan saidDanone appear to be in the same difficulties in India in their dispute with Britania. See Prashant's excellent post "The 'TIGER' of Britania' at SpicIP. posted on Friday, September 21, 2007 6:04pm 0 Trackbackstrackback url: http://duncanbucknell.com/trackback.php?id=131 |
|



















Jeremy Phillips said
"The foreign party must actively supervise or participate in the day-to-day management of the JV" - but this is more easily said than done, I fear. Has anyone set up a business in China to which licensors can outsource active supervision, quality control etc?
posted on Friday, September 7, 2007 7:03am