In 1996, Danone, Wahaha signed a \"Trademark Transfer Agreement\", the \"Wahaha\" trademark transferred to Dawa joint venture.But this was not been approved by the State Trademark Office.To this end, in 1999, both parties again signed the \"Trademark License Contract\" to replace the original \"Transfer Agreement\", the \"Wahaha\" trademark license to the Dawa joint venture companies.However, in 2007, a series of disputes took place between the two sides.Danone requested Wahaha to comply with the first agreement, namely to transfer the “Wahaha” trademark to the joint venture to make clear of the trademark’s attribution.But Wahaha side argued that the trademark office didn’t approve the \"Trademark Transfer Agreement\" and the two sides signed a \"trademark license contract\" in 1999 which had replaced the \"transfer agreement\", so there was no obligation to transfer the Wahaha trademark.
For this reason, Wahaha first apply for Hangzhou Arbitration Commiion to make an arbitration to confirm that \"Trademark Transfer Agreement\" has been terminated.In December, 2007, Hangzhou Arbitration Commiion ruled that the \"Transfer Agreement\" has been terminated.Danone refused to accept the award, applied for revocation of this verdict to the Hangzhou Intermediate People\'s Court.In July, 2008, Hangzhou Intermediate People\'s Court ruled to upheld the original ruling.
However, Danone did not give up.Shortly after the arbitration case mentioned above, Danone applied for another arbitration to Hangzhou Arbitration Commiion, argued that even if the \"Transfer Agreement\" was rejected by the State Trademark Office, resulting in the \"transfer agreement\" to terminate, but \"Wahaha\" trademark still should be transferred to the joint venture company, as the \"Transfer Agreement\" not only pointed to the “Wahaha” trademark registered in China, but also concerning about “Wahaha” trademark registered.What’s more, the transfer of the latter trademark not required the approval of the State Trademark Office, so there also had obligations for Wahaha Group to transfer the “Wahaha” trademark registered abroad to Danone.This formed a strange situation \"a contract, two cases\".
In September, 2008, Hangzhou Arbitration Commiion rejected Danone\'s request.Then, Danone applied Hangzhou Intermediate People\'s Court for the revocation of the ruling, but the court ultimately upheld the original ruling in May, 2009.
参考中文：
网址：，
1996年，达能、娃哈哈签署了《商标转让协议》，将“娃哈哈”商标转让给达娃合资公司。但当时国家商标局对此未予核准。为此，双方协商于1999年再次签订《商标使用许可合同》，替代原来的《转让协议》，将“娃哈哈”商标许可给达娃合资公司使用。
然而2007年，双方发生一系列纠纷。此后达能提出要求娃哈哈履行该协议，将商标转让给合资公司，明确归属。但娃哈哈方面认为，因为《商标转让协议》国家商标局并没有批准，双方已经通过签订《商标使用许可合同》终止了《转让协议》，娃哈哈没有义务转让商标。
为此，娃哈哈率先向杭州仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请，请求确认《商标转让协议》已经终止。2007年12月，杭州仲裁委员会作出裁决，认定《转让协议》已终止。达能不服该裁决，向杭州中院申请撤销。2008年7月，杭州中院作出裁定，维持原裁决。
然而达能没有就此放弃。
在娃哈哈提起上述仲裁案后不久，达能提出：即使由于国家商标局不批准，导致《转让协议》终止，但该《转让协议》不仅约定了娃哈哈应当将在国内注册的“娃哈哈”商标转让给合资公司，同时对于在境外注册的“娃哈哈”商标也有转让义务，而境外转让是不需要国家商标局审批的，因此娃哈哈仍有义务转让在境外注册的商标。这就形成了“一份合同、两起案件”的奇异局面。
2008年9月，杭州仲裁委员会驳回了达能的请求。达能又向杭州中院申请撤销该裁决，但这次杭州中院最终维持了原裁决。
