下载文档原格式
对达能并购娃哈哈案例的分析及由此引发的思考班级：08经济学2班姓名：潘相文学号：0807100224 08经济学2班姓名：宋一帆学号：0807100231当今社会是一个大并购时代，就在中国企业苦苦为国际化生存而求索的同时，跨国资本也加快了对中国的行业并购整合的步伐。
这是经济全球化时期中国发展的必然特征，但我们也必须要考虑到外资并购导致行业垄断，并危及产业安全和经济安全的突发情形。
2006年9月，达能提出以低价并购娃哈哈与其非合资企业，这个要求遭到娃哈哈的拒绝。
2007年4月3日，一篇《宗庆后后悔了》的文章，将娃哈哈与达能的并购与反并购之争暴露在世人面前。
由此，也有了至今仍在热炒，情况仍不明朗的“娃哈哈”与“达能”之争。
1996年，娃哈哈与法国达能公司、香港百富勤公司共同出资建立了五家公司，共同生产以“娃哈哈”为商标的包括纯净水、八宝粥等在内的产品。
当时，娃哈哈占到了49%的股份，达能与百富勤加起来占51%。
亚洲金融风暴之后，香港百富勤在境外将股权卖给了达能，使达能跃升到了51%的绝对控股地位。
当时，达能立刻提出，将“娃哈哈”商标权转让给与其合资的公司，但遭到了国家商标局的拒绝，因此后来双方改签了一份商标使用合同。
然而，2007年，达能以娃哈哈非合资生产的产品未经合资公司董事会通过，擅自使用娃哈哈商标违反合同为名，要求以40亿元人民币的低价并购杭州娃哈哈集团有限公司总资产达56亿元、2006年利润达10.4亿元的其他非合资公司51%的股权。
导致宗庆后与达能交恶的原因，是被宗庆后称为对方精心布下圈套让其钻的“不平等条约”———1996年2月29日，急于合资的娃哈哈与达能达成商标转让协议，中方要使用娃哈哈商标，必须经过合资公司董事会通过。
由于后来达能占到了合资公司的51%股份，也就是说，娃哈哈的非合资公司要使用娃哈哈的商标，须经达能同意方行。
可以肯定的是，杭州娃哈哈集团公司与杭州娃哈哈食品有限公司之间的这场纠纷，纯属于合资协议纠纷。
引进FDI过程中我国民族知识产权流失问题达能收购娃哈哈案例一、公司简介娃哈哈公司：杭州娃哈哈集团有限公司创建于1987年，为中国最大全球第五的食品饮料生产企业，在资产规模、产量、销售收入、利润、利税等指标上已连续11年位居中国饮料行业首位，成为目前中国最大、效益最好、最具发展潜力的食品饮料企业。
达能集团：总部设于法国巴黎的是一个业务极为多元化的跨国食品公司，集团的业务遍布六大洲、产品行销100多个国家。
1996年集团的总营业额达到839亿法郎。
在法国、意大利及西班牙，达能集团都是最大的食品集团，达能亦是当今欧洲第三大食品集团，并列全球同类行业前六名。
二、事件背景：1996年，娃哈哈集团与法国达能集团、香港百富勤公司共同合资成立了杭州娃哈哈食品有限公司同时还成立了另外4家以“娃哈哈”为字号的合资企业。
娃哈哈集团中还有一些企业没有合资，此后娃哈哈集团又相继建立了一批与达能集团没有合资关系的娃哈哈公司。
在1996年2月9日的娃哈哈合资公司的合资合同中，约定了由娃哈哈集团将其拥有的“娃哈哈”系列注册商标转让给娃哈哈合资公司。
故娃哈哈集团与娃哈哈合资公司又于1996年2月19日签订了一份《娃哈哈商标权转让协议》，约定娃哈哈集团将其注册的“娃哈哈”系列商标以对价一亿元人民币独占性地转让给娃哈哈合资公司，然后再由娃哈哈合资公司授权给它其余“娃哈哈”合资企业使用，一亿元转让费中的5 000万元作为娃哈哈集团对娃哈哈合资公司的部分出资，另5 000万元由娃哈哈合资公司以现金形式支付给娃哈哈集团。
因为“娃哈哈”注册商标的《商标转让协议》逾二年未能获得国家工商行政管理总局商标局的批准，娃哈哈合资公司遂又在1999年5月18日与娃哈哈集团签订了约定同一法律行为的两份《娃哈哈商标许可使用合同》，其中一份几乎是《商标转让协议》翻版，内容较为详细，另一份是商标权许可使用的格式文本，内容比较简单，两者都明确了娃哈哈集团授予娃哈哈合资公司专有的和不可撤销的商标使用许可；当时以内容较为简单的一份报商标局备案。
达能并购娃哈哈一、事件背景：1996年，娃哈哈与达能公司、香港百富勤公司共同出资建立5家公司，生产以“娃哈哈”为商标的包括纯净水、八宝粥等在内的产品。
娃哈哈持股49%，亚洲金融风暴之后，百富勤将股权卖给达能，达能跃升到51%的控股地位。
当时，达能提出将“娃哈哈”商标权转让给与其合资公司未果后，双方改签一份商标使用合同。
正是这一条款，引发了强行收购风波。
二、达能＆娃哈哈的婚姻历程：1996年，达能投资4300万美元与娃哈哈建立5家合资公司，达能获得51％的股权。
2007年，法国达能公司最近欲强行以40亿元人民币的低价并购杭州娃哈哈集团有限公司总资产达56亿元、2006年利润达10.4亿元的其他非合资公司51%的股权。
2007年，4月5日娃哈哈召开了董事会，认为合资合同条款不平等。
5月9日，达能亚洲及其全资子公司已经正式向瑞典斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院提出8项仲裁申请。
其中，7项仲裁都是合资企业的外方股东针对中方股东提出的仲裁。
2007年12月-2008年4月达娃和谈，在两国政府协调下，双方中止了法律程序进行和谈。
达能要求以约200亿的价格将其投资在合资公司的不到14亿元人民币股权售给娃哈哈，价格按上市公司平均市盈率计算，被娃哈哈拒绝。
2009年9月30日，达能和娃哈哈发声明称达成和解：达能和娃哈哈集团2009年9月30日宣布，双方已达成友好和解，达能同意将其在各家达能-娃哈哈合资公司中的51%的股权出售给中方合资伙伴。
三、并购结果：失败。
失败原因：这起并购案例属于典型的恶意并购，达能公司在私底下收购了超过百分之五十的股份，且在中国大量收购龙头企业的股份，有垄断嫌疑。
达能公司实际上已经对中国的饮料业进行了垄断，严重违背了国家六部委《关于外国投资者并购境内企业的规定》中“并购方在中国的营业额超过15亿元人民币，境内资产拥有30亿元以上，境内企业超过50家，必须报经国家商务部、国家工商总局审查规定”。
娃哈哈集团＆达能集团的经营战略：1、开发新产品，迅速占领市场：八十年代中后期，国民生活水平普遍提高，人们对保健意识逐渐增强。
娃哈哈的反思通过分析娃哈哈与达能的纷争，提出在中外企业合资中，我国企业民族自有品牌保护意识，本土市场等问题的思考，力图探索在中国市场环境下适合双方企业合资合作的新模式。
一、事件回顾2009 年9 月30 日持续3 年的“达娃”之争，最终以达能接受娃哈哈3 亿欧元和解费同意出售在39 家合资公司里的51%的股权落幕。
纵观中外企业纠纷史，这是中方的一次难得胜利，保住了中国仅剩的不多的民族品牌，这是中国消费品业的胜利，这是东西方文化对撞冲突后，东方价值观的胜利。
这一持续3年的“达娃”之争又是怎样一步步发展的呢？1.背景：法国达能集团是总部设在巴黎的欧洲第三大食品集团，产品遍及100 多个国家。
在九十年代初开始进军中国，曾拥有乐百氏92%股权、梅林正广和50%股权、光明20.1%股权、汇源22.18%股权。
杭州娃哈哈集团是创建于1987 年的一家校办企业，二十世纪中期已经发展为中国最大的食品饮料生产企业，并且成为全球第五大饮料生产企业。
2.缘起：1996 年，娃哈哈由于在国内上市失败，急于寻觅资金，最终与达能及百富勤合资成立五家合资公司，娃哈哈集团以现有厂房、设备、土地出资占49%的股份，香港百富勤与达能以现金出资占51%，后因百富勤破产，达能成为合资公司的最大控股方。
合资公司成立之时双方在合作协议中约定，娃哈哈集团同意向合资公司转让价值为1 亿元的商标。
其中5000 万作投资，另外5000 万则向娃哈哈购买商标。
但是，这个商标转让协议不符合中国的有关法律，未能通过政府审核, 后来双方在《商标使用许可合同》中规定“: 中方将来可以使用商标在其他产品的生产和销售上,而这些产品项目已提交给娃哈哈与其合营企业的董事会进行考虑。
”接下来的几年中，娃哈哈集团先后建立了十几家与达能集团没有合资关系的非合资企业，主要生产饮料和食品，并以“娃哈哈”为商标。
3. 经过：2006 年，达能以商标使用合同中娃哈哈集团“不应许可除娃哈哈达能合资公司外的任何其他方使用商标”为由，要求收购由娃哈哈职工集资持股成立并且与达能没有合资关系的公司。
国际商务合同实践报告学院：管理与经济学院专业：国际经济与贸易报告人：201314513 张婷婷201314525 彭艺茹目录一．案例介绍1.1原文介绍1.2原文翻译1.3案例概述二．案例分析三．结局反思一．案例介绍1.1原文介绍：BackgroundIf you are in China,chances are you drink at least one bottle of Wahaha brand water,or perhaps the company’s iced tea,fruit drinks,or its Future Cola.If you go to the United States,you may even come cross Future Cola in New York or Los Angeles,because the company that first set up shop in an elementary school in Hangzhou,Zhejiang,is going global.The Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co.,Ltd.,China’s leading domestic beverage producer,didn’t achieve success overnight.The company’s predecessor,the Hangzhou Shangcheng District School-Run Enterprise Sales Department,funded its start-up operations in 1987 with a government loan.Zong Qinghou,the company’s founder,and two retired schoolteachers initially sold milk products and popsicles out of a school store,but to benefit the student’s health the group soon began producing and selling nutritional drinks.The company’s success selling nutrition products in school led to its first big expansion:with Hangzhou government support,the company acquired a company then changed its name to the Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co.(The word “Wahaha”is meant to mimic the sound of a baby laughing and is taken from a children’s folk song.)Wahaha’s second large-scale expansion occurred in 1994 when the company merged with three insolvent companies in Fulling,Sichuan,to set up its first factory in Chongqing.The Wahaha Joint Venture (JV)was formed in February,1996.At the start,there were three participants in the JV:Hangzhou Wahaha Food Group(Wahaha Group),led by its chairman Zong Qinghou;Danone Group,a French corporation(Danone);and Bai Fu Qin,a Hong Kong corporation(Baifu).In 1996,the two parties signed a trademark tranfer agreement,with anintention to transfer the”Wahaha”trademark to the joint ventures.The move,however,was not approved by the State Trademark Office.For this reason,the two parties signed in 1999 the trademark licensing contract.According to law,the same subject can not be synchronously transferred and licensed the use to others by the same lost.Therefore,the signing and fulfillment of the trademark licensing contract showed that the two parties had connived the invalidation of the transfer agreement.The”Wahaha”brand should belong to the Wahaha Group,while the joint ventures only have right of use.In October,2005,the two parties inked the No.1 amendment agreement to the trademark licensing contract,in which it confirmed Party A(Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co.,Ltd.)as owner of the trademark.In addition,the second provision of the amendment agreement clearly stated that the several Wahaha subsidiaries listed in the fifth annex of the licensing contract as well as other Wahaha subsidiaries(referred to as”licensed Wahaha enterprises”)established by Party A or its affiliates following the signing of the licensing contract also have right granted by one party to use the trademark.The “licensed Wahaha enterprises”involved in the amendment agreement refer to the non-joint ventures.According to related files,Wahaha owns the ownership of the “Wahaha”trademark,while its non-joint ventures have the right to use the trademark.The Danone-Wahaha Feud--Trademark LicenseFrom May,2007 when Danone initiated legal proceeding against Wahaha,the both sides have carried out several dozen lawsuits worldwide.As of May,2009,Danone not only lost a series of cases against Zong Qinghou and the non-joint ventures in China,but directors of Danone were deemed by many courts to have violated the non-compete obligation of directors,and litigations filed in the U.S.,Italy,France and British Virgin Islands(BVI)were alsodismissed.Now,Wahaha defeats Danone 37:0 in the lawsuits in and out of China.The ownership and use right of the Wahaha trademark is one of the focuses of the”Danone-Wahaha feud.”Danone often insisted that the Wahaha trademark belonged to the joint ventures,so the use of the trademark by non-joint ventures constituted infringement.But Wahaha Group disagreed with that,and emphasized that it was the true holder of the trademark,and the use of the trademark by non-joint ventures was legal.At the beginning of the Danone-Wahaha “marriage,” Wahaha signed a transfer agreement on the ownership of the Wahaha trademark with the joint ventures,and filed a trademark transfer application with the State Trademark Office,which,however,was not approved.”It actually declared the termination of the transfer contract,and the Wahaha trademark is still owned by the Wahaha Group,”said Ye Zhijian,a lawyer who knows the case.Afterward,the two parties signed a trademark licensing contract in 1999 to substitute the original transfer agreement.Both the licensing contract and the consequent No.1 amendment agreement clarify that the non-joint ventures of Wahaha have the right to use the Wahaha trademark.“It was known to and recognized by Danone that the non-joint ventures OEM for the joint ventures,so how could it be possible for the non-joint ventures to use a different trademark from the joint ventures?”Ye noted.To confirm the ownership of the Wahaha trademark,Wahaha referred to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission for arbitration in accordance with the trademark transfer agreement.In December,2007,the commission made a decision that the trademark transfer agreement between Danone and Wahaha had terminated,and the Wahaha trademark belonged to the Wahaha ter,the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court affirmed the ruling.1.2 原文翻译：背景如果你在中国,那么你至少喝一瓶娃哈哈品牌水,或者公司的冰茶,果汁饮料,或非常可乐。
国际商务合同实践报告学院：管理与经济学院专业：国际经济与贸易报告人：201314513 张婷婷201314525 彭艺茹目录一．案例介绍1.1原文介绍1.2原文翻译1.3案例概述二．案例分析三．结局反思一．案例介绍1.1原文介绍：BackgroundIf you are in China,chances are you drink at least one bottle of Wahaha brand water,or perhaps the company’s iced tea,fruit drinks,or its Future Cola.If you go to the United States,you may even come cross Future Cola in New York or Los Angeles,because the company that first set up shop in an elementary school in Hangzhou,Zhejiang,is going global.The Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co.,Ltd.,China’s leading domestic beverage producer,didn’t achieve success overnight.The company’s predecessor,the Hangzhou Shangcheng District School-Run Enterprise Sales Department,funded its start-up operations in 1987 with a government loan.Zong Qinghou,the company’s founder,and two retired schoolteachers initially sold milk products and popsicles out of a school store,but to benefit the student’s health the group soon began producing and selling nutritional drinks.The company’s success selling nutrition products in school led to its first big expansion:with Hangzhou government support,the company acquired a company then changed its name to the Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co.(The word “Wahaha”is meant to mimic the sound of a baby laughing and is taken from a children’s folk song.)Wahaha’s second large-scale expansion occurred in 1994 when the company merged with three insolvent companies in Fulling,Sichuan,to set up its first factory in Chongqing.The Wahaha Joint Venture (JV)was formed in February,1996.At the start,there were three participants in the JV:Hangzhou Wahaha Food Group(Wahaha Group),led by its chairman Zong Qinghou;Danone Group,a French corporation(Danone);and Bai Fu Qin,a Hong Kong corporation(Baifu).In 1996,the two parties signed a trademark tranfer agreement,with anintention to transfer the”Wahaha”trademark to the joint ventures.The move,however,was not approved by the State Trademark Office.For this reason,the two parties signed in 1999 the trademark licensing contract.According to law,the same subject can not be synchronously transferred and licensed the use to others by the same lost.Therefore,the signing and fulfillment of the trademark licensing contract showed that the two parties had connived the invalidation of the transfer agreement.The”Wahaha”brand should belong to the Wahaha Group,while the joint ventures only have right of use.In October,2005,the two parties inked the No.1 amendment agreement to the trademark licensing contract,in which it confirmed Party A(Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co.,Ltd.)as owner of the trademark.In addition,the second provision of the amendment agreement clearly stated that the several Wahaha subsidiaries listed in the fifth annex of the licensing contract as well as other Wahaha subsidiaries(referred to as”licensed Wahaha enterprises”)established by Party A or its affiliates following the signing of the licensing contract also have right granted by one party to use the trademark.The “licensed Wahaha enterprises”involved in the amendment agreement refer to the non-joint ventures.According to related files,Wahaha owns the ownership of the “Wahaha”trademark,while its non-joint ventures have the right to use the trademark.The Danone-Wahaha Feud--Trademark LicenseFrom May,2007 when Danone initiated legal proceeding against Wahaha,the both sides have carried out several dozen lawsuits worldwide.As of May,2009,Danone not only lost a series of cases against Zong Qinghou and the non-joint ventures in China,but directors of Danone were deemed by many courts to have violated the non-compete obligation of directors,and litigations filed in the U.S.,Italy,France and British Virgin Islands(BVI)were alsodismissed.Now,Wahaha defeats Danone 37:0 in the lawsuits in and out of China.The ownership and use right of the Wahaha trademark is one of the focuses of the”Danone-Wahaha feud.”Danone often insisted that the Wahaha trademark belonged to the joint ventures,so the use of the trademark by non-joint ventures constituted infringement.But Wahaha Group disagreed with that,and emphasized that it was the true holder of the trademark,and the use of the trademark by non-joint ventures was legal.At the beginning of the Danone-Wahaha “marriage,” Wahaha signed a transfer agreement on the ownership of the Wahaha trademark with the joint ventures,and filed a trademark transfer application with the State Trademark Office,which,however,was not approved.”It actually declared the termination of the transfer contract,and the Wahaha trademark is still owned by the Wahaha Group,”said Ye Zhijian,a lawyer who knows the case.Afterward,the two parties signed a trademark licensing contract in 1999 to substitute the original transfer agreement.Both the licensing contract and the consequent No.1 amendment agreement clarify that the non-joint ventures of Wahaha have the right to use the Wahaha trademark.“It was known to and recognized by Danone that the non-joint ventures OEM for the joint ventures,so how could it be possible for the non-joint ventures to use a different trademark from the joint ventures?”Ye noted.To confirm the ownership of the Wahaha trademark,Wahaha referred to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission for arbitration in accordance with the trademark transfer agreement.In December,2007,the commission made a decision that the trademark transfer agreement between Danone and Wahaha had terminated,and the Wahaha trademark belonged to the Wahaha ter,the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court affirmed the ruling.1.2 原文翻译：背景如果你在中国,那么你至少喝一瓶娃哈哈品牌水,或者公司的冰茶,果汁饮料,或非常可乐。
