Huiyuan’s Brand ‘Severance’: When a Cutting-Off Statement Risks New Infringement / 汇源”切割”声明：当”切割”本身可能构成侵权

On October 19, barely six days after the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court’s first-instance ruling, Huiyuan Group announced in the morning that it would sever ties with the “Huiyuan” brand and launch a new brand, “Zujia Guoyuan”; that evening Beijing Huiyuan fired back a counter-statement, saying the other side “is not the trademark right holder” and “need not and has no right to declare” any severance. Two statements in a single day. Behind the standoff, what is worth asking is not who got the upper hand, but something else: after a company declares it will “no longer use” a trademark, why does it keep invoking that mark in the new brand’s messaging — a farewell, or a borrow? Who owns the mark, the judgment has already made clear; whose goodwill owns, still hangs in the balance between these two statements.

10 月 19 日，距福州市中级人民法院一审判决落槌不过六天：汇源集团上午宣布与”汇源”品牌切割、启用新品牌”咱家果源”；当晚，北京汇源即回以反声明，称对方”并非商标权利人”，”不必发表也无权宣称”切割。一天之内，两纸声明。隔空对峙之下，值得追问的不是谁占了上风，而是另一件事：一家企业宣布”不再使用”某个商标之后，为什么还要在新品牌的话术里一再提起它——是告别，还是借用？商标归谁，判决书已经写明；商誉归谁，还悬在这两纸声明之间。

After the Judgment, a Second Move

判决之后，还有第二个动作

On October 13, 2026, the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Fujian Province issued a first-instance ruling in the “Huiyuan” trademark-infringement and unfair-competition dispute. According to the notification from Beijing Huiyuan Food & Beverage Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Huiyuan”) and reports by Xinhua and China National Radio, the court found that Beijing Huiyuan Group Kaifeng Co., Ltd. and Beijing Huiyuan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., without authorization, manufactured and sold “Huiyuan”-branded juice products, infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark and constituting unfair competition. It ordered them to cease the infringement, stop using “Huiyuan” as a trade name, and jointly pay 97.338 million yuan in damages and enforcement costs; Hebei Huiyuan Food & Beverage Co., Ltd., as the sole shareholder of the Kaifeng company, bore joint liability for failing to prove its assets were separate.

2026 年 10 月 13 日，福建省福州市中级人民法院对”汇源”商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案作出一审判决。据北京汇源食品饮料有限公司（下称”北京汇源”）通报及新华社、央广网转述，法院认定北京汇源集团开封有限公司、北京汇源生物科技有限公司在未获授权的情况下生产、销售”汇源”牌果汁产品，侵害注册商标专用权并构成不正当竞争，判令停止侵权、停止在企业名称中使用”汇源”字号，连带赔偿经济损失及维权开支合计 9733.8 万元；河北汇源食品饮料有限公司作为开封公司唯一股东，因未能证明财产独立而承担连带责任。

The first-instance case number has not been publicly disclosed.

一审案号尚未公开披露。

On the morning of October 19, Beijing Huiyuan Beverage & Food Group Co., Ltd. (“Huiyuan Group”) issued the “Solemn Statement on Severing Ties with the ‘Huiyuan’ Brand and Fully Launching the ‘Zujia Guoyuan’ Brand,” announcing it would no longer produce juice bearing the “Huiyuan” mark, terminate the related OEM contracts, and launch the new brand “Zujia Guoyuan.”

10 月 19 日上午，北京汇源饮料食品集团有限公司（下称”汇源集团”）发布《关于与”汇源”品牌进行切割并全面推出”咱家果源”品牌的严正声明》，宣布不再生产带有”汇源”商标的果汁产品，终止相关代工合同，启用新品牌”咱家果源”。

That evening, Beijing Huiyuan issued a counter-statement: Huiyuan Group is not the trademark right holder and “need not and has no right to issue a statement severing ties with the ‘Huiyuan’ trademark,” and urged the relevant companies “not to keep stirring up the matter, still less to ride the ‘Huiyuan’ brand for attention and traffic” (per The Beijing News and China News Service).

当天晚上，北京汇源作出反声明：汇源集团并非商标权利人，”不必发表也无权宣称与’汇源’商标的切割声明”，并呼吁相关企业”不应再反复炒作，更不应借’汇源’品牌蹭热度与流量”（据新京报、中新经纬报道）。

The two statements stand in tense opposition, and most commentary reads it as a sequel to the public-opinion war. In the author’s view, they raise a different question: can a severance statement itself constitute a fresh infringement?

两纸声明隔空对峙，多数评论把它读成舆论战的续集。笔者认为，它提出的是另一个问题：一份切割声明本身，会不会构成新的侵权。

The Issue Is Not “Whether One May Mention Huiyuan”

争点不在”能不能提汇源”

Let us first settle one thing. This article is not about “whether one may say the two characters ‘Huiyuan.'”

先把一件事厘清。本文讨论的不是”能不能说’汇源’两个字”。

Trademark law protects the identifying function, not the words themselves. Anyone is entitled, within necessary limits, to explain their historical relationship with a mark — having been its licensee, its OEM factory, a participant in its operation. Such explanation belongs to description, or to the category of nominative fair use.

商标法保护的是识别功能，不是文字本身。任何人都有权在必要范围内说明自己与某一商标的历史关系——曾是它的被许可人，曾是它的代工厂，曾参与它的经营。这种说明属于叙述，或指示性合理使用的范畴。

Since historical statements are hard to prohibit, what is worth discussing?

既然历史陈述难以被禁止，那么值得讨论的是什么。

Per the China Times, Huiyuan Group explained the split to reporters: “What consumers trusted in Huiyuan in the past was, in essence, the real industrial capacity of orchard raw materials, production processes, and quality-control standards — the core asset our ‘Zujia Guoyuan’ inherits today.” The Shanghai Securities News · China Securities Network also quoted its commercial rationale: “We will not allow Huiyuan juice, now controlled by the capital side, to keep borrowing the brand history and commercial goodwill the group accumulated over three decades.”

据《华夏时报》报道，汇源集团就这次切割向记者解释：”过去消费者信任汇源，本质信任的是果园原料、生产工艺、品控标准这套实体产业能力，这也是我们今天’咱家果源’继承的核心资产。”上海证券报·中国证券网亦引述其商业考量在于”不允许由资本方掌控的汇源果汁，继续借用集团三十年积淀的品牌历史与商业信誉”。

Look at the structure of those two sentences: “the core asset we inherit” inherits consumer trust; “will not allow borrowing” asserts control over that brand history and commercial goodwill.

请看这两句的结构：”继承的核心资产”，继承的是消费者信任；”不允许借用”，主张的是对那份品牌历史与商业信誉的支配。

The body of the statement follows the same structure: “It was the full industry chain that created the Huiyuan trademark, not the ‘Huiyuan’ trademark that made the Huiyuan Group. Capital may take the name, but it cannot take away the orchard bases and the production and quality-control systems we have built up over more than thirty years.” “The green hills remain unchanged, the fruit aroma endures. Thank you for more than thirty years together; we set out anew under the name ‘Zujia Guoyuan.'”

声明正文沿的也是这个结构：”是全产业链实业缔造了汇源这个商标，而并非’汇源’商标造就了汇源集团。资本可以拿走名号，但夺不走我们沉淀三十余年的果园基地、生产与品控体系。””青山不改，果香依旧。感谢三十余年相伴，我们以’咱家果源’之名重新出发。”

Here “Huiyuan” may do more than explain who one used to be — it guarantees the quality and provenance of “Zujia Guoyuan.” This is the leap this article discusses: from “I used to be” to “therefore I am now.”

“汇源”在这里起的作用，可能不只是说明过去是谁，而是为”咱家果源”的品质与来历作担保。这就是本文要讨论的那一跳：从”我曾经是”跳到”所以我现在是”。

A “Statement” Within the Reach of Trademark Law Article 48

商标法第四十八条射程内的”声明”

Why this leap carries legal significance requires looking at Article 48 of the Trademark Law.

这一跳为什么有法律意义，要看商标法第四十八条。

That article (amended in 2019, effective November 1, 2019) provides: “The use of a trademark as referred to in this law means the use of the trademark on goods, their packaging or containers, or on documents of commodity transactions, or the use of the trademark in advertising, exhibitions, and other commercial activities, for the purpose of identifying the source of the goods.”

该条（2019 年修正，2019 年 11 月 1 日施行）规定：”本法所称商标的使用，是指将商标用于商品、商品包装或者容器以及商品交易文书上，或者将商标用于广告宣传、展览以及其他商业活动中，用于识别商品来源的行为。”

Three elements: an act of use, a commercial activity, and source identification. Does a statement count as a “commercial activity”? In the series of Jiaduobao v. Guangyao cases, the courts never refused review merely because the carrier was a slogan rather than a product label; the Supreme People’s Court, in its (2017) SPC Min Zai 155 ruling, held that a licensee’s notification to consumers of a renaming fact, to preserve its contribution, was “not evidently improper in subjective terms.”

三个要件：使用行为、商业活动、识别来源。声明算不算”商业活动”？在加多宝与广药集团那批案件中，法院从未因载体是广告语而非商品标签就拒绝审查，最高人民法院还在（2017）最高法民再 155 号判决里认定，被许可人为保有其贡献而向消费者告知更名事实，”其主观上并无明显不当”。

Huiyuan Group’s statement was not a letter to customers either: it was published on the group’s official WeChat account, in sync with the new brand launch. Per the Beijing Daily, “Zujia Guoyuan” juice has appeared densely over the past month and begun recruiting distributors at the autumn sugar and liquor fair. That the statement is part of the new brand’s commercial promotion is not hard to establish.

汇源集团的声明也不是一份告客户书：它发布在集团官方公众号，与新品牌发布同步。据北京日报报道，近一个月来”咱家果源”果汁密集亮相，并在秋季糖酒会开启招商。声明是新品牌商业推广的一环，这一点不难认定。

The remaining third element — and the whole of the disagreement — is whether “Huiyuan” in this statement is “used to identify the source of goods.”

剩下第三个要件，也是全部分歧所在：”汇源”在这份声明里，是不是”用于识别商品来源”。

If its role is merely to say “we used to make Huiyuan,” the answer is no. If its role is to transfer consumers’ trust in “Huiyuan” onto “Zujia Guoyuan,” the answer is open to doubt. At that point the two characters bear not a descriptive function but an identifying and guaranteeing function — they tell the consumer not “who I am” but “you may believe me as you believed Huiyuan.”

如果它的作用只是说明”我们以前做过汇源”，答案是否定的。如果它的作用是让消费者把对”汇源”的信任转移到”咱家果源”上，答案就要打一个问号。此时这两个字承担的不是叙述功能，而是识别与担保功能——它告诉消费者的不是”我是谁”，而是”你可以像相信汇源一样相信我”。

Four Answers from the Jiaduobao Cases

加多宝案给出的四种答案

This question Chinese courts have answered, and answered in detail. The most complete sample over the past decade remains the batch of Jiaduobao v. Guangyao lawsuits around the “renaming” narrative, whose dispute arose from the trademark license between Hong Kong’s Hung To Group and mainland Guangyao Group — itself a cross-border authorization-termination dispute. Four answers draw a fairly clear line.

这一问，中国的法院答过，而且答得很细。过去十年最完整的样本仍是加多宝与广药集团围绕”改名”叙事的那批诉讼，其争议起于中国香港鸿道集团与内地广药集团之间的商标许可，本身即是一起跨境授权终止型纠纷。四个答案，划出一条相当清楚的线。

First, objectively informing of a change: permitted. The Supreme People’s Court, in its (2017) SPC Min Zai 155 civil judgment (2019), held that a licensee’s interest in preserving its contribution, by notifying consumers of the renaming fact, was not evidently improper subjectively; objectively, given the brevity of the slogan and consumers’ awareness of the actual operating entity, expressions like “renamed Jiaduobao” did not produce a misleading effect.

第一种：客观告知变化，可以。最高人民法院在（2017）最高法民再 155 号民事判决（2019 年）中认定，被许可人为保有其贡献而享有的权益，将更名事实向消费者告知，主观上并无明显不当；客观上基于广告语简短的特点及消费者对实际经营主体的认知，”改名加多宝”一类表述不产生引人误解的效果。

This holding has a premise and a tail: the premise is “objective” — what is notified is the change itself, not an evaluation; the tail is added by the judgment itself — because of its own nature the slogan did not fully express the background of the “renaming,” and its use shortly after the license relationship ended had some reasonableness, “but now, after relevant publicity, consumers already have some understanding of the entanglement between the two… using this slogan no longer has a factual basis, and therefore… it should not continue to be used.”

这个认定有一个前提和一个尾巴：前提是”客观”，告知的是变化本身而非评价；尾巴是判决书自己加的：该广告语因自身属性没有完整表达”改名”的相关背景，在双方许可关系刚刚终止之时使用有一定合理性，”但现已经过相关宣传，消费者对两者之间的纠葛已有一定的了解……使用该广告语已经不再具有事实依据，故……不应继续使用该涉案广告语”。

In other words, the right to inform has a window period; once the window passes, the same sentence turns from explanation into free-riding.

换言之，告知权有窗口期，窗口一过，同一句话就从说明变成攀附。

Second, moving the original brand’s sales data onto the new brand: not permitted. The same judgment reached the opposite conclusion on “the nationally best-selling red-can herbal tea — Jiaduobao.” The Supreme Court’s reason: the sales evidence Jiaduobao submitted “included data from the Wanglaoji-branded herbal tea it had previously produced, and did not truthfully and comprehensively reflect the actual sales of the Jiaduobao-branded red-can herbal tea,” so the slogan failed to state the facts objectively and accurately and constituted false advertising. The same conclusion applied to “of every 10 cans of herbal tea sold in China, 7 are Jiaduobao,” ultimately awarding 1 million yuan in damages and reasonable costs [(2017) SPC Min Zai 155, Supreme People’s Court, 2019; also corroborated by Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Group’s August 16, 2019 litigation-result announcement and People’s Daily client reports].

第二种：把原品牌的销量数据搬给新品牌，不行。同一份判决对”全国销量领先的红罐凉茶——加多宝”作出了相反认定。最高法的理由是，加多宝方面提交的销量证明”包含了其之前生产的王老吉品牌凉茶的数据信息，并不能真实、全面反映加多宝品牌红罐凉茶的实际销量”，该广告语未能客观准确表述事实，构成虚假宣传。对”中国每卖 10 罐凉茶 7 罐加多宝”亦作相同认定，最终判赔经济损失及合理费用 100 万元〔（2017）最高法民再 155 号，最高人民法院，2019 年；另经广州白云山医药集团股份有限公司 2019 年 8 月 16 日诉讼结果公告、人民日报客户端报道印证〕。

Third, moving the original brand’s honors onto the new brand: even less permitted. Jiaduobao had advertised that “Jiaduobao herbal tea was named ‘China’s No. 1 Canned Beverage’ for seven consecutive years” and “seven-time champion.” The Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court (first instance) and the Beijing High People’s Court (second instance) both found false advertising and awarded 3 million yuan; the Supreme People’s Court dismissed the retrial petition by (2015) Min Shen Zi 2802 civil ruling (2016).

第三种：把原品牌的荣誉搬给新品牌，更不行。加多宝方面曾宣传”加多宝凉茶连续 7 年荣获’中国饮料第一罐'””七连冠”。北京市第三中级人民法院一审、北京市高级人民法院二审均认定构成虚假宣传，判赔 300 万元；最高人民法院以（2015）民申字第 2802 号民事裁定（2016 年）驳回其再审申请。

The ruling’s reasoning is not complicated: by the ordinary attention of the relevant public, the relevant public “more often” understands the slogan as Jiaduobao-branded herbal tea being the seven-year sales leader; even without that understanding, the advertising “is also one-sided and ambiguous,” and that one-sidedness and ambiguity “would give Jiaduobao China and Guangdong Jiaduobao an unjust competitive advantage in the herbal-tea market.”

裁定书里的推理并不复杂：以相关公众的一般注意力，相关公众”更多的是”把广告语理解为加多宝品牌凉茶连续七年销量第一；即便不作此种理解，该宣传”也是片面的和有歧义的”，而这种片面与歧义”会使加多宝中国公司和广东加多宝公司在凉茶市场中获得不正当竞争优势”。

Jiaduobao’s defense was of the same structure — “it enjoys this product’s goodwill and is also entitled to publicize that fact, without needing to mark the product’s history in the advertisement.” This sentence and “it was the full industry chain that created the Huiyuan trademark” are almost two versions of the same logic. Three levels of court accepted neither.

加多宝一方的抗辩理由与之同构——”其享有这一商品商誉，亦有权对这一事实进行宣传，无需在广告中标注该商品的历史沿革”。这句话与”是全产业链实业缔造了汇源这个商标”，几乎是同一个逻辑的两种说法。三级法院都没有接受。

Fourth, whether the renaming advertisement itself is misleading — the courts have disagreed. The Chongqing High People’s Court, in its (2014) Yu Gao Fa Min Zhong Zi 00318 judgment (December 15, 2015), held that “the nationally best-selling red-can herbal tea renamed Jiaduobao” constituted misleading false advertising, one reason being: when an operator touches another’s commercial reputation and product reputation, it “should introduce the relevant facts comprehensively and objectively, and take necessary explanations to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding among ordinary consumers,” or it still constitutes misleading false advertising. The case was later retried by the Supreme People’s Court, which ultimately did not uphold that holding.

第四种：改名广告本身算不算误导，法院之间有过分歧。重庆市高级人民法院在（2014）渝高法民终字第 00318 号判决（2015 年 12 月 15 日）中认定”全国销量领先的红罐凉茶改名加多宝”构成引人误解的虚假宣传，理由之一是：经营者在涉及他人商业信誉和商品信誉时，”应当对相关事实作全面、客观的介绍，并采取必要的说明避免使一般消费者产生歧义或误解”，否则仍构成引人误解的虚假宣传。该案后经最高人民法院再审，最终未维持这一认定。

The same sentence, two levels of court gave opposite answers. So where exactly is the line? The disagreement itself is informative: it shows the boundary of the “renaming narrative” was never settled with one hammer-stroke in judicial practice, but has always been a matter of case-by-case balancing — a real, off-the-page risk for the parties.

同一句话，两级法院给出相反答案。那么边界到底在哪里？分歧本身有信息量：它说明”改名叙事”的边界在司法实践里从未被一锤定音，一直是逐案权衡的对象，对当事人而言风险实在，不在纸面。

The Division of Labor Between Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

商标侵权与不正当竞争的分工

Returning to the leap at the opening, we must also separate the forms of liability.

回到本文开头那一跳，还要把责任形态分开。

The “used to identify the source of goods” required by Article 48 is a fairly high threshold. Merely explaining one’s historical relationship with a mark usually does not constitute trademark use. The Beijing Fengtai District People’s Court explained this distinction clearly in the Nalco case: a product label that marks “Nalco America Co., Ltd.” in a size and position consistent with other English words “serves to state producer information, and the ‘Nalco’ therein does not constitute trademark use” [(2020) Jing 0106 Min Chu 20350].

商标法第四十八条要求的”用于识别商品来源”，是一道不低的门槛。单纯说明自己与某商标的历史关系，通常不构成商标性使用。北京市丰台区人民法院在纳尔科案中把这个区分讲得很清楚：产品标贴上以与其他英文单词大小、位置一致的方式标注”Nalco America Co., Ltd.”，”系为说明生产者信息，其中的’Nalco’不构成商标性使用”〔（2020）京 0106 民初 20350 号〕。

The same judgment immediately took a second step: the court found that the defendant’s use, in its products and authorization letters, of a company name containing the “Nalco” trade name showed “subjective intent to free-ride on others’ goodwill and malicious competition, and objective ease of misleading the public,” and still constituted unfair competition.

同一份判决紧接着走了第二步：法院认定，被告在产品和授权书中使用含有”纳尔科”字号的公司名称，”主观上具有攀附他人商誉、恶意竞争的故意，客观上容易误导公众”，仍构成不正当竞争。

This two-step move is precisely where this article’s thesis lands.

这个两步走，正是本文命题的落点。

Trademark infringement looks at “source identification” — whether “Huiyuan” was used to mark the source of “Zujia Guoyuan.” Unfair competition looks at “free-riding on goodwill” — whether “Huiyuan’s” reputation was used to add points to “Zujia Guoyuan.” The former threshold is high, the latter low; the two doors need not be pushed open together.

商标侵权看的是”识别来源”——有没有拿”汇源”去标识”咱家果源”的来源。不正当竞争看的是”攀附商誉”——有没有拿”汇源”的声誉去给”咱家果源”加分。前一道门槛高，后一道门槛低，两道门不必一并推开。

The two lines in the “Zujia Guoyuan” statement — “relying on a complete, self-owned full industry chain to keep deepening the juice business” and “upholding quality to repay consumers” — read together with “more than thirty years” and “the green hills unchanged, the fruit aroma endures,” point precisely to the Huiyuan brand’s past quality and “honors it once received.” Whether this reaches a misleading degree requires case-by-case judgment. This article only points out: this norm exists, and the Jiaduobao cases stand prior.

“咱家果源”声明里”依托完整自有全产业链继续深耕果汁事业””坚守品质回馈广大消费者”两句，与”三十余年””青山不改，果香依旧”连起来读，指向的正是汇源品牌的过往质量与”曾获荣誉”。这是否达到引人误解的程度，需个案判断。本文只指出：这条规范存在，且有加多宝案在先。

How a Severance Statement Should Be Drawn

切割声明该怎么落笔

So where should the line be drawn for a severance statement that minimizes risk? The author suggests four rules.

那么，一份把风险降到最低的切割声明，边界又该划在哪里？笔者认为有四条。

State only the change; do not carry over the evaluation. One may say “from a certain month and year we no longer produce products bearing a certain mark,” but should not say “this quality is now inherited by us.” “Inherit” is a legal characterization, not a factual description. What the Jiaduobao case rejected was precisely this move.

只陈述变化，不搬运评价。可以说”自某年某月起不再生产带某商标的产品”，不宜说”这份品质如今由我们继承”。”继承”是法律定性，不是事实描述。加多宝案被否定的正是这一手。

Attach a time coordinate when telling history; do not turn history into identity. The No. 155 judgment preserved the fact of “renaming” and rejected the evaluation of “nationally best-selling”; the difference lies in whether there is a time qualifier. “We started in 1992” is historical fact; “thirty-plus years of quality now resides in Zujia Guoyuan” is an identity transfer.

讲历史时挂上时间坐标，不要把历史讲成身份。155 号判决保留的是”更名”这个事实，否定的是”全国销量领先”这个评价，差别就在有没有时间限定。”1992 年我们起步”是史实；”三十余年的品质如今在咱家果源”是身份转移。

Separate factual notice from commercial promotion. Once a statement is released in sync with new-brand distributor recruitment, it is hard to be treated merely as notice. Per the Beijing Daily, “Zujia Guoyuan” has already begun recruiting distributors at the autumn sugar and liquor fair; placing the two in the same communication rhythm objectively strengthens the association that “the new brand takes over the old.”

把事实告知与商业推广分开。声明一旦与新品牌招商同步投放，就很难只被当作告知。据北京日报报道，”咱家果源”已在秋季糖酒会开启招商，两件事放在同一传播节奏里，客观上会强化”新品牌承接旧品牌”的联想。

Mind the window period. The No. 155 judgment gives the clearest line: as consumers gradually learn of the entanglement between the parties, the sentence that could once be said “no longer has a factual basis.” The legitimacy of the severance narrative decays with time.

注意窗口期。155 号判决给了最清楚的一条：随着消费者对双方纠葛逐渐了解，原先可以说的那句话”已经不再具有事实依据”。切割叙事的合法性随时间衰减。

The rule runs both ways. Beijing Huiyuan’s counter-statement also wrote that “the production, R&D, and quality-control teams have always been the original Huiyuan crew…” (per The Beijing News and China News Service). This sentence speaks from the position of the trademark right holder, describing its own goodwill — different in nature from the situation discussed here; but if used to endorse some newly introduced OEM system, it must pass the same test.

规则是双向的。北京汇源的反声明里也写了”生产、研发及品控团队始终为汇源原班人马……”（据新京报、中新经纬报道）。这句话用的是商标权人身份，属于对自身商誉的描述，与本文讨论的情形性质不同；但若被用来为某个新引入的代工体系背书，同样要过这一关。

There is also a risk on the other side. Huiyuan Group’s statement claims that juice bearing the “Huiyuan” mark on the market “has no further quality or industrial relationship with the Huiyuan Group’s founding operating system.” This is a negative statement about a competitor’s product quality; the requirement of the fair-competition principle is not lowered because the speaker calls it “protecting consumers’ right to know”; whether it holds depends on whether the statement is supported by evidence, which this article does not prejudge.

还有一处风险在另一面。汇源集团声明称，市面上印有”汇源”商标的果汁”与汇源集团创始运营体系再无任何品质和产业关系”。这是对竞争对手商品的品质作否定性陈述，该条对正当竞争原则的要求，不因陈述者自称”保障消费者知情权”而降低；能否成立，取决于这一表述有无证据支撑，本文不预判。

The first-instance judgment is not yet effective; per Xinhua, a person close to Huiyuan Group said it will appeal. The judgment clarified who owns the mark; the statements are still contesting whose goodwill owns — the former has a judgment, the latter awaits the next lawsuit, or the parties’ own restraint with the pen.

一审判决尚未生效，据新华网报道，接近汇源集团的人士表示将提起上诉。判决划清了商标归谁，声明还在争商誉归谁——前者有判决书，后者要靠下一场诉讼，或者靠当事人自己收住笔。

This article holds that whether “Zujia Guoyuan” can stand depends, in the end, not on how much past it tells, but on whether it can produce its own share of proof.

本文认为，”咱家果源”能不能立住，最终不取决于它讲了多少过去，取决于它能不能给出属于自己的那一份证明。

Sources: the first-instance judgment of the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court (October 13, 2026); Beijing Huiyuan Beverage & Food Group’s “Solemn Statement on Severing Ties with the ‘Huiyuan’ Brand and Fully Launching the ‘Zujia Guoyuan’ Brand” (October 19, 2026); Beijing Huiyuan Food & Beverage’s counter-statement (October 19, 2026); related facts per Xinhua, China National Radio, The Beijing News, China News Service, the China Times, the Shanghai Securities News · China Securities Network, the Beijing Daily, Xinhua Net, and other public reports.

来源：福建省福州市中级人民法院一审判决（2026 年 10 月 13 日）；北京汇源饮料食品集团有限公司《关于与”汇源”品牌进行切割并全面推出”咱家果源”品牌的严正声明》（2026 年 10 月 19 日）；北京汇源食品饮料有限公司反声明（2026 年 10 月 19 日）；相关事实据新华社、央广网、新京报、中新经纬、华夏时报、上海证券报·中国证券网、北京日报、新华网等公开报道。