A lucrative business, a well-value branded asset, has allowed a pair of fellow brothers who once belonged to the former Lulu Group (now known as Linlin Group) to tear their faces and swap roles among plaintiffs and defendants years later.
Over the past five years, the battle between Hebei Chengde Lulu Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as \"Chengde Lulu \") and Shantou High-tech Zone Lulu South Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as\" Shantou Lulu \") around the \"Lulu\" trademark has intensified step by step. Until June 2019, with the judgment of the Jinping District Court of Shantou City, Guangdong Province, in the first instance that Chengde Lulu should stop obstructing and interfering with Shantou Lulu's use of the relevant licensed trademark, the confrontation between the two sides reached white heat.
At that time, for the above judgment, Chengde Lulu immediately refused and filed an appeal. Seven months later, the trademark dispute came to a final judgment - upholding the original judgment. However, chengde lulu in january 5 disclosure of the \"major litigation progress notice\" reiterated:\" to protect the company's core intellectual property rights, the company will apply to the people's court for retrial, determined to take all legal measures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of companies and investors.\"
According to Chengde Lulu, the company recently received (2019) Guangdong Province Shantou City Intermediate People's Court service 713\" Civil Judgment \", in the judgment, Shantou City Intermediate People's Court rejected Chengde Lulu's appeal, upheld the original judgment, this time is the final judgment.
In fact, since June 2015, Chengde Lulu has sued Shantou Lulu several times, claiming that documents such as memos granting Shantou Lulu the right to use the trademark were not in accordance with legal procedures.
However, as of July 2018, Shantou Lulu, who had been sitting in the dock for a long time, filed a petition against Chengde Lulu to Shantou Jinping District Court on the grounds of failure to comply with the Memorandum and the Supplementary Memorandum signed on December 27,2001 and 28,2002, and requested the court to order Chengde Lulu to continue to perform the trademark licensing obligations of the defendant.
In June 2019, in response to the above-mentioned lawsuit, the Jinping District Court of First Instance decided that the memorandum and supplementary memorandum signed by Shantou Lulu and Chengde Lulu as well as the third party Linlin Group and the third party Hong Kong Feida Enterprise Company were valid, and Chengde Lulu should continue to fulfill its contractual obligations for trademark use license as stipulated in the above two documents, and stop and interfere with the acts of Shantou Lulu's use related licensed trademarks.
\"In the course of the proceedings in this case, the company presented key evidence aimed at proving the invalidity of the Memorandum and the Supplementary Memorandum, as well as at proving the alleged forgery of the Supplementary Memorandum, but the Jinping District Court of Shantou City did not accept it,\" Chengde Lulu said in a statement on June 4,2019. The company's attorney argued that the jinping district court had seriously violated the proceedings and deprived the company of its litigation rights. Accordingly, the company is not satisfied with the first instance judgment of the Jinping District Court, and will appeal at the legal time.
However, from the results of the current second instance, Chengde Lulu failed to achieve the desired results. \"The lawsuit is final and will not have a direct impact on the company's profits for 2019, and the company's production and operation are normal, and the impact on the company's future brand influence, market competitiveness and the company's overall strategy will be uncertain.\" In the January 5 announcement, Chengde Lulu said so.
Zhu Danpeng, an analyst in China's food industry, told the International Financial Daily that the long-running dispute between Chengde Lulu and Shantou Lulu's trademark would create many obstacles to the company's national layout, operation and expansion.
Chengde Lulu is also aware of this. In his public announcement, the company's attorney said strictly that the court of first instance and the court of second instance had found that the facts and the applicable law were wrong, that the memorandum and supplementary memorandum permanently granted the company's core intellectual property rights and most of its market share to Shantou Lulu, permanently bound Shantou Lulu to the company, and continued to steal the company's commercial interests, seriously harming the interests of the company and all shareholders, and violating the provisions of the law.
On the afternoon of january 6th chen yuanxi, a lawyer at shanghai's haihua yongtai law firm, told the international financial press that the legal reasons for applying for a retrial should include new evidence, defects or errors in evidence, errors in the application of the law and errors in the application of the procedure. \"According to Chengde Lulu's related disclosure, do not rule out the possibility of a further court session, the specific circumstances still have to wait for the people's court to accept the case.\"
``In order to make this trademark, Chengde Lulu must be in the first battle. After all, the company's leading product for more than 20 years after being listed is``Lulu'' , the product structure is too single. ``An investor who has studied Chengde Lulu told reporters.
The official website showed that chengde lulu's predecessor was founded in 1950 chengde canned food factory, in november 1997, chengde lu lu listed on the shenzhen exchange, became the only domestic plant protein beverage industry listed company, headquartered in chengde, hebei.
However, since 2014, the former industry leader has suffered a painful development, major product sales have fallen significantly. In 2014, chengde lulu sold ten thousand tons of almond dew and other products, leaving only ten thousand tons of sales in 2018, according to the data. Compared with the vegetable protein beverage listed company, the volume of Chengde Lulu has been far left behind.
Since then, Chengde Lulu's performance has also been \"stagnant\" dilemma. Wind data showed that its revenue fell from $100 million to $100 million in 2015-2018, with revenue growth of%,-%,-%,%, and net profit slipping from $100 million to $100 million, with year-on-year growth of%,-%,-%,-% and -%, both of which are in a sustained decline. In the first three quarters of 2019, although Chengde Lulu's performance has improved, operating income has increased by% to 100 million yuan year-on-year, and net profit has increased by% to 100 million yuan year-on-year, but it is still difficult to say success.
In October 2019, Lu Yongming, who had been chairman of Chengde Lulu for only one and a half years, announced his resignation for personal reasons. At that time, a number of industry in an interview with reporters said that Chengde Lulu this change of handsome and performance has a greater relationship.
In fact, according to reporters, Chengde Lulu's \"departure tide\" began in 2018, when the company's then deputy general manager Wang Xuchang, chairman Guan Dayuan, supervisor Zhou Shuxiang, supervisor Jian Zecheng and other senior executives left.
On the afternoon of january 6, on the current chengde lulu market performance and specific measures to boost performance, reporters contact chengde lulu, but as of the press release, did not get the relevant response.