After the Asian financial crisis in 1997, Danone obtained an absolute controlling position of 51% in the 39 joint venture companies with Wahaha. Danone immediately proposed to transfer the "Wahaha" trademark rights to its joint venture company, but was rejected by the National Trademark Office. In 2006, Danone wanted to acquire Wahaha's non-joint venture company, but Wahaha refused. Danone then requested that the "Wahaha" trademark continue to be transferred to the joint venture company, and the forced merger and acquisition case began. Later, they sued each other's executives for competition, tax evasion, and even disputes involving Zong Qinghou's wife and daughter. In December 2007, Danone lost three of the seven lawsuits filed against Wahaha abroad, while the remaining four cases have not yet been officially launched. On July 30, 2008, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court made the final judgment, and the Wahaha trademark was finally awarded to Wahaha. Industry experts analyze that trademark is the core of the dispute between Danone and Wahaha. After losing this crucial battle, Danone is helplessly slipping into the abyss of complete defeat. Guilin's "non-competition", Hangzhou trademark arbitration, Xinjiang litigation, Shenyang's "non-competition", the interim measure of arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden was rejected, the opposition to the "Shuang Wai Wai" trademark was rejected, and with the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court's judgment, Danone Having suffered seven consecutive losses in court, and three consecutive losses in Europe that are not well known to the Chinese, Danone has failed to win any of its legal battles with Wahaha. However, Danone's troubles don't stop there. As the Shenyang "non-compete" case was lost, there was another news that attracted more attention - Danone executives represented by Qin Peng were caught in a "tax evasion scandal." The media confirmed that the tax authorities in Guangdong and Shanghai had launched investigations into this matter. To make matters worse, someone soon reported to the tax authorities that the whereabouts of Danone's 1.21 billion Robust acquisition funds were unknown. This year is the first year of the implementation of the "New Corporate Income Tax Law". China's anti-tax avoidance efforts have increased unprecedentedly. Analysts believe that the problems currently exposed by Danone are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg, so it is under great pressure. The ruling of the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court is likely to affect the Swedish trademark arbitration case between Dawa. According to common practice, the Swedish arbitration tribunal will apply Chinese law, which means that it is unlikely that Danone will overturn the case in Sweden. Analysts believe that there is no possibility of continued cooperation between the two parties, and Danone will inevitably withdraw. Wahaha may acquire Danone’s assets for 6 to 8 billion. At present, the domestic beverage industry has a serious overproduction of production lines. If liquidated, the assets will be worthless, which will not benefit either party. Similarly, it is impossible for Wahaha to sell its shares to Danone, so Danone is most likely to sell its shares to Wahaha.