The dispute between the two parties is "the ownership of the outer packaging and decoration rights of the red can". The focus of the dispute is mainly whether the trademark rights and decoration rights are separated. The laws cited by both parties are the National Anti-Unfair Competition Law, but their starting points are different. Jiaduobao believes that the outer packaging of the red can is designed by Jiaduobao and has been created with many years of hard work. It is part of the attributes of a "well-known trademark", even though "Wanglaoji" had previously been "The trademark has been ruled to belong to Guangzhou Pharmaceutical, but the outer packaging and trademark can be separated. It should belong to Jiaduobao, which has worked hard for it. Guangzhou Pharmaceutical's behavior has damaged the unique packaging and other rights of well-known products. However, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical believes that the Wong Lo Kat trademark and the outer packaging are inseparable. Since the Wong Lao Kat trademark has been acquired by Guangzhou Pharmaceutical, the packaging also belongs to Guangzhou Pharmaceutical. The so-called well-known products still refer to "Wang Lo Kat", not the current "Jiaduobao" ". [1]

Jiaduobao believes that the decorative design of the red can of herbal tea was pioneered by Jiaduobao, so the appearance of the red can is a unique logo for the Jiaduobao brand and is also a unique symbol of Jiaduobao. The identity label of herbal tea. In the eyes of many consumers, Jiaduobao’s unique red can represents Jiaduobao herbal tea. Feng Zhimin, administrative director of the Chairman's Office of Jiaduobao Group, said: Specifically, we provided 49 pieces of evidence, including three parts. The first part is the certificate of rights, including our design certificate and patent certificate. The second part has been promoted and used for more than ten years. The rights formed during the decoration process of red can packaging include our sales certificates, advertising certificates, and promotion certificates, and we have won honors from society, including functional departments. The third aspect is the losses we, as the operator of Hongcan Herbal Tea, suffered due to the other party’s infringement. We believe that these evidences are very strong to prove that the authentic red can herbal tea (packaging) belongs to Jiaduobao, and we are confident in the verdict.

GPharm Group believes that Jiaduobao’s packaging and market operation of red can herbal tea, as well as the promotion of the popularity of Wanglaoji herbal tea, are all carried out under the authorization of Guangyao. Jiaduobao is only The licensee, not the rights owner. They also provided corresponding evidence and were full of confidence in winning the case. Ni Yidong, vice chairman of GPHL, said that GPHL provided about 20 pieces of evidence, mainly including physical objects or proofs of ownership relationships and infringement, as well as corresponding original contract evidence. We are sure of victory because according to the corresponding cases and Judicial agreement and unfair competition law, as well as the conceptual definition of well-known commodities and the subsidiary rights of packaging and decoration, we believe that GPHL is sure to win the case.

The Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court’s official Weibo message showed that the court summarized the four points of dispute in this case: 1. What is the product involved, and what is the unique packaging and decoration of well-known products? 2. Who owns the unique packaging and decoration of the goods involved in the case; 3. Whether the unique packaging and decoration of the goods involved in the case can be separated from the Wanglaoji trademark or Jiaduobao Company, and who constitutes the infringement; 4. How to calculate economic losses. Both parties expressed their respective opinions on the determination of the focus of the dispute. In response, Jiaduobao said that the packaging and decoration of well-known commodities involved in this case are commercial signs that identify the source of the goods. That is, there is only the issue of whether the packaging and decoration can be separated from the source of the goods, but not the issue of whether it can be separated from the trademark. The fundamental reason is that packaging, decoration and trademarks inherently have independent functions as sources of food products. In response to this focus of debate, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical randomly gave different explanations. Guangyao believes that the content of product packaging and decoration should be fixed, and the text, color and pattern should be solidified. If they are independent, they cannot form solidified packaging and decoration. Therefore, there is bound to be the question of whether the packaging and decoration can be separated from the trademark. [4]