In-Depth Analysis Report on the Control Dispute Between Huiyuan Group and Beijing Huiyuan

As an iconic brand in China’s juice industry, the development of Huiyuan Juice reflects the changes in China’s consumer market. In 1994, Beijing Huiyuan Food and Beverage Co., Ltd. was established, and later developed rapidly under the leadership of founder Zhu Xinli, once becoming the leader in China’s juice market. 2013 marked Huiyuan’s peak, when it ranked first nationwide in market share for instant noodles, ready-to-drink tea, bottled water, and the overall juice market[1].

However, affected by multiple factors, Beijing Huiyuan entered bankruptcy restructuring in 2021 due to serious insolvency. In June 2022, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court ruled to approve the restructuring plan. Shanghai Winsway Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Winsway Assets”) served as the restructuring investor, promising to inject RMB 1.6 billion within three years, hold a 70% stake, and the original shareholder Huiyuan Group and actual controller Zhu Xinli fully exited. In July 2023, the court ruled that the restructuring plan was fully implemented, and Beijing Huiyuan achieved a “rebirth”[2].

In July 2024, China Water Affairs launched a plan to indirectly acquire shares of Beijing Huiyuan, but the acquisition was terminated in May 2025 due to the freezing of the target shares, which became an important turning point for the deterioration of relations between the two parties. In August 2025, Huiyuan Group issued an open letter, publicly accusing Winsway Assets of defaulting on RMB 850 million in investment funds for the first time, and pointed out that among the RMB 750 million received, RMB 647 million was not invested in business operations[2].

Subsequently, the conflict between the two parties escalated rapidly, involving disputes over official seals, channel out-of-stock, and other aspects. In December 2025, Huiyuan Group formally filed a lawsuit and applied for property preservation. The RMB 640 million stake in Beijing Huiyuan held by Winsway Hui, a subsidiary of Winsway Assets, was judicially frozen by the Beijing No.3 Intermediate People’s Court, with a freezing period from December 9, 2025 to December 8, 2028[2].

On January 8, 2026, Huiyuan Group issued a statement through its official public account, declaring that it would retake control of the Huiyuan brand on the grounds that Winsway Assets had long failed to fulfill its capital contribution obligations under the Restructuring Investment Agreement, constituting a fundamental breach of contract. The next day, Beijing Huiyuan issued a stern statement on the “Huiyuan Juice Official Account”, claiming that after the restructuring was completed, Huiyuan Group still controlled the original management team, suspected of embezzling and misappropriating more than RMB 600 million of the company’s funds, seriously infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the company and investor shareholders[1][2].

: Huiyuan Group accuses Winsway Assets of failing to fulfill the commitment of injecting RMB 1.6 billion as agreed in the agreement, and the actual amount invested in operations is far lower than the agreed amount. Winsway Assets, on the other hand, believes that it has fulfilled its corresponding obligations in accordance with the restructuring plan, and there is a fundamental disagreement between the two parties on this matter.

: This is the key point of the dispute between the two parties. In its statement, Beijing Huiyuan emphasizes that the ownership of the series of registered trademarks such as “Huiyuan” and its similar or related marks is clear and without any dispute, and legally belongs to Beijing Huiyuan Food and Beverage Co., Ltd. Huiyuan Group is not the trademark right holder. Previously, it had an OEM cooperation relationship with Beijing Huiyuan, and was authorized by Beijing Huiyuan to produce and process “Huiyuan” products through its affiliated factories[2]. Up to now, Beijing Huiyuan has stopped authorizing Huiyuan Group’s affiliated factories to use the trademark, so it believes that the products with the “Huiyuan” trademark currently produced and sold by Huiyuan Group are all infringing products.

: Both parties claim to have legitimate control over the Huiyuan brand. Beijing Huiyuan states that its current management team is legally appointed by the board of directors, has legitimate operational management authority, and cannot be arbitrarily “taken over” by any person or organization. Huiyuan Group, on the other hand, claims that due to the fundamental breach of contract by Winsway Assets, it will legally take over all corresponding ordering businesses of Beijing Huiyuan and Huiyuan Juice[1][2].

---

Huiyuan Group’s core claims revolve around the following aspects:

First, Huiyuan Group believes that Winsway Assets has committed a fundamental breach of contract, so it will no longer continue to perform the Restructuring Investment Agreement and related accessory contracts. Based on this, Huiyuan Group declares that it will legally take over all corresponding ordering businesses of Beijing Huiyuan and Huiyuan Juice.

Second, Huiyuan Group questions the supply chain management of Beijing Huiyuan. Huiyuan Group believes that Winsway Assets and Beijing Huiyuan have implemented a series of irresponsible behaviors targeting the Huiyuan brand, which violate Huiyuan Group’s brand protection purposes. They purchase juice raw materials that have not been supervised and recognized by Huiyuan Group’s food safety monitoring system from ordinary OEM factories, and produce counterfeit juice products[2].

Third, Huiyuan Group clearly puts forward a number of core claims: all juice raw material procurement contracts signed between Beijing Huiyuan controlled by Winsway Assets and OEM enterprises outside the system are invalid; juice products produced without raw materials provided by Huiyuan Group shall not be sold under the “Huiyuan” name; Beijing Huiyuan under control shall not sign supply and marketing contracts with downstream distributors for products using the Huiyuan brand but not produced by Huiyuan Group[2].

Beijing Huiyuan’s response is equally firm, and its core arguments include:

Regarding trademark ownership, Beijing Huiyuan emphasizes that the “Huiyuan” trademark legally belongs to Beijing Huiyuan, without any dispute. Huiyuan Group was only an original OEM partner, and the authorization to use the trademark has now been terminated, so the products with the “Huiyuan” trademark produced and sold by Huiyuan Group are all infringing products[1][2].

Regarding fund issues, Beijing Huiyuan disclosed in its statement that since 2024, some retained senior executives in Beijing Huiyuan have arbitrarily adjusted financial management procedures, and illegally paid funds to Huiyuan Group, resulting in uncontrolled financial expenditures. Although the board of directors of Beijing Huiyuan stopped the behavior in time and replaced the management team, the original management team did not hand over important materials such as the company’s official seals and licenses. More seriously, Beijing Huiyuan accuses Huiyuan Group of suspected embezzlement and misappropriation of more than RMB 600 million of the company’s funds, and has filed a criminal report with the Economic Crime Case Acceptance Center of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and the Economic Investigation Brigade of the Shunyi District Public Security Bureau. The public security department is currently handling the case[1][2].

Regarding operational legitimacy, Beijing Huiyuan states that its current management team is legally appointed by the board of directors, has legitimate operational management authority, and the company’s operations are all normal, and cannot be arbitrarily “taken over” by any person or organization. It also emphasizes that the court’s ruling approving the restructuring plan in 2022 is a final judicial conclusion with absolute legal effect, and there is no possibility of “overturning or rolling back”[2].

At present, both parties have filed lawsuits against each other. Huiyuan Group has filed a lawsuit with the Beijing No.3 Intermediate People’s Court to claim the remaining investment funds, with Hebei Huiyuan Food and Beverage Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff, Winsway Hui Self-owned Capital Investment Co., Ltd. as the defendant, and Beijing Huiyuan as the third party. According to industry analysts, the litigation claim does not involve changes in the equity, management rights, or trademark rights of Beijing Huiyuan[2].

On the part of Beijing Huiyuan, it has filed a lawsuit against Huiyuan Group for trademark infringement with the Shunyi District Court of Beijing, and has received the lawsuit receipt, waiting for a legal judgment[2].

---

The prolonged internal strife has caused significant market damage to the Huiyuan brand. According to data from Mashangying, an offline retail monitoring company, among the top five brands in the non-chilled ready-to-drink juice market share, Huiyuan Juice ranks second only to Coca-Cola, Nongfu Spring, and Master Kong, and alternates with Uni-President China in the 4th and 5th positions most of the time[2].

More seriously, Huiyuan Juice’s market share has shown a continuous downward trend. In Q3 2025, Huiyuan Juice’s market share was 3.45%, a year-on-year decline for three consecutive years compared to 4.45% in Q3 2024 and 5.08% in Q3 2023[2]. From a historical perspective, Huiyuan’s share is usually around 8% in the first quarter and around 5% in the second, third, and fourth quarters, but its share in the last three quarters of 2024 and 2025 has continued to decline, indicating that the brand’s competitiveness is accelerating its decline.

The reduction in product categories is a direct manifestation of Huiyuan’s predicament. A field survey by Interface News reporters at Beijing Shouhang Supermarket shows that compared with five years ago, the categories of Huiyuan products on supermarket shelves have been significantly reduced. In January 2026, there were only two SKUs on the juice shelf of the supermarket, namely 1L 100% blended peach juice and 1L 100% orange juice[2].

The situation on the channel side is also not optimistic. A Huiyuan agent in Shanxi told Interface News that in recent years, there has been no growth in Huiyuan’s goods, mainly high-concentration products sell relatively well, but only during the peak season around the Spring Festival. The agent has not actively represented Huiyuan’s products since the second half of this year, mainly due to “company turmoil and product aging”[2].

China’s juice market is undergoing profound structural changes. From the perspective of competition pattern, the market presents diversified characteristics:

Juice Category	Major Brands	Market Characteristics
Low-concentration Juice (below 30%)	Uni-President, Master Kong	Largest market scale, fierce competition
Mid-concentration Juice (30%-100%)	Nongfu Spring	Fastest-growing segment
High-concentration Juice (100%)	Huiyuan, Dole	Huiyuan’s share continues to decline
Not from Concentrate (NFC) Juice	Wei-Chuan, FRUTCO, NFC	Obvious high-endization trend
Cold-pressed Juice	Missfresh, HeyJuice	Emerging high-end market

From the perspective of the entire industry, tea drinks have resumed growth since 2021 and have shown an accelerated growth trend, with growth rates of 5.9%, 9.9%, and 9.7% in 2022-2024 respectively. Corresponding to the scale of tea drinks of major enterprises in the first half of 2025, Nongfu Spring reached RMB 10.09 billion (a year-on-year increase of 20%), Master Kong reached RMB 10.67 billion (a year-on-year decrease of 6%), and Uni-President China reached RMB 5.07 billion (a year-on-year increase of 9%)[3].

Traditional bottled drinks are facing strong substitution from ready-to-drink tea. According to Nielsen data, from July to September 2025, the sales of beverages in the entire market declined year-on-year for three consecutive months, with the growth rate of the entire channel as low as -9% in September, and the growth rate of offline channels even dropping to -10.4%[3].

The rise of ready-to-drink tea is changing consumption scenarios. New tea brands such as Mixue Bingcheng, Bawang Chaji, and Guming have launched geometrically rapid expansion with strong capital support. Taking Mixue Group as an example, after listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, its market value exceeded HK$160 billion, far surpassing Master Kong Holdings, which is also listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange[3].

The subsidy wars on food delivery platforms are also accelerating the substitution of offline purchase scenarios for bottled drinks. Food delivery platforms can provide customized options such as sweetness, ice level, and ingredients, coupled with frequent new product launches on a monthly or even weekly basis. Compared with standardized bottled drinks, they can provide consumers with more freshness and diversified experiences[3].

---

The market share lost by the Huiyuan brand due to internal strife is being rapidly eroded by competitors. From the mid-2025 data, Uni-President China’s revenue in the same period was RMB 17.087 billion, a year-on-year increase of 10.6%; net profit was RMB 1.287 billion, a year-on-year increase of 33.2%. Among them, the beverage business revenue was RMB 10.788 billion, a year-on-year increase of 7.6%[3].

Although Master Kong is facing pressure from the decline of its core business, its beverage business revenue in the first half of 2025 was RMB 26.359 billion, making it still an important player in the industry. Nongfu Spring has risen strongly in the ready-to-drink tea market with sugar-free tea products such as Oriental Leaf[3].

The most noteworthy market risk at present is the possible emergence of “Huiyuan Juice” with the same packaging but different production entities. Both Huiyuan Group and Beijing Huiyuan are producing products with the “Huiyuan” trademark, but according to Beijing Huiyuan’s statement, Huiyuan Group’s products are “infringing products”[2].

This chaotic situation will bring serious cognitive confusion to consumers and distributors. Channel partners cannot judge which party to cooperate with, and consumers cannot distinguish the authenticity of the products. From a business logic perspective, unless the two parties clarify the trademark ownership through legal channels, this situation of dual brands coexisting will continue to plague the market.

Brand assets are the most core intangible assets of consumer goods enterprises. After 30 years of accumulation, the Huiyuan brand was once synonymous with juice in the minds of Chinese consumers. However, the prolonged control dispute is rapidly consuming this brand value.

From the perspective of brand life cycle theory, the reconstruction of a brand requires a long time and a lot of resource investment. Even if this dispute is resolved in the future, the market position and consumer trust of the Huiyuan brand will be difficult to recover in the short term. It is more likely that Huiyuan will become a regional or low-end brand, gradually moving away from its previous positioning as a “national juice” brand.

Huiyuan’s internal strife provides an opportunity for the entire juice industry to reshuffle. From the perspective of industry development trends, several important changes deserve attention:

: Consumers’ demand for health is increasing, and low-sugar, low-fat, high-concentration juice products are more popular. High-concentration juice and NFC juice are considered important directions for future growth.

: The proportion of traditional supermarket channels continues to decline, and the importance of convenience stores, e-commerce, and new retail channels is rising. Enterprises need to establish omni-channel operation capabilities.

: Flavor innovation, packaging innovation, and scenario innovation have become the key to brand breakthroughs. Categories such as sugar-free tea and electrolyte water have exploded rapidly, while traditional juice categories have sluggish growth.

: Against the background of fluctuations in the cost of bulk raw materials, supply chain efficiency and cost control capabilities have become important components of enterprise competitiveness.

---

: If the two parties can clarify the ownership of trademark rights and operation rights through judicial channels, the market is expected to gradually return to normal. However, judging from the tough attitudes of both parties at present, the possibility of reaching a settlement is low.

: If the legal process is prolonged, and the two parties continue to produce separately and compete for channels, the chaos of “dual Huiyuan” will continue. This situation is the most harmful to the brand, and may eventually result in a lose-lose outcome.

: It is not ruled out that powerful third-party capital or enterprises may take advantage of the situation to integrate Huiyuan’s brand assets through acquisition. However, considering the current complex equity structure and legal disputes, this possibility is low.

Regardless of how this dispute ends eventually, its impact on the Huiyuan brand and the entire juice industry will be far-reaching:

For the Huiyuan brand, it will need to go through a long process of trust reconstruction. If Beijing Huiyuan can stabilize production, restore channels, and gain consumer recognition for product quality, the brand is expected to gradually recover. But if the turmoil continues, Huiyuan may completely withdraw from the mainstream market.

For the industry competition pattern, brands such as Coca-Cola, Nongfu Spring, Master Kong, and Uni-President will continue to benefit from the loss of Huiyuan’s market share. In particular, Nongfu Spring and Uni-President have strong layouts in the juice and tea drink sectors, and are expected to be the biggest beneficiaries.

For investors and creditors, Winsway Assets, as the restructuring investor, has invested a large amount of funds, and its equity is facing the risk of asset impairment after being frozen. Creditors and shareholders of the original Huiyuan Group need to wait for the resolution of the dispute before clarifying subsequent arrangements.

---

The control dispute between Huiyuan Group and Beijing Huiyuan is one of the most iconic corporate governance crises in China’s consumer goods industry in recent years. The core of this dispute lies in the investment fund issue after bankruptcy restructuring and the dispute over trademark ownership. Both parties have their own stances, and legal channels may be the final path to resolve the dispute.

From the perspective of market impact, the prolonged internal strife of more than two years has caused irreversible damage to the Huiyuan brand. Its market share has dropped from the industry’s first place in 2013 to the 4th or 5th place in 2025, product categories have shrunk significantly, and dealer confidence has been frustrated. More importantly, the chaos of “dual Huiyuan” has brought confusion to consumers and channel partners, which may become a hidden danger for the long-term development of the brand.

From the perspective of industry pattern, China’s RMB 100 billion juice market is undergoing profound changes. Traditional bottled drinks are facing substitution pressure from ready-to-drink tea and food delivery channels, industry growth has slowed down, and competition has intensified. Healthiness, high-endization, and channel diversification have become the main trends. Huiyuan’s decline provides expansion opportunities for competitors, but the overall growth bottleneck of the industry also means that stock competition will become more fierce.

For the Huiyuan brand, whether it can restore its former glory depends on three key factors: first, the speed of resolving the legal dispute, second, the stability of product quality, and third, the effectiveness of channel reconstruction. In the highly competitive juice market, time is the most scarce resource, and every day of delay means further loss of market share.

---

[1] Sina Finance - “Whose ‘Huiyuan’ Is It Exactly?” (https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2026-01-09/doc-inhftipq1416558.shtml)

[2] Interface News - “Huiyuan Control Dispute Intensifies” (https://www.jiemian.com/collection/232topics/20260109/176798_2.shtml)

[3] Guotai Junan Securities Food and Beverage Industry Weekly - “Moutai’s Price Continues to Recover, Focus on Mass Market Structural Endowments” (https://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2025-12-30/doc-inhewuuw9368695.shtml)

[4] Eastmoney.com - “Beijing Huiyuan Responds: Beijing Huiyuan is the Rightful Owner of the ‘Huiyuan’ Trademark” (https://caifuhao.eastmoney.com/news/20260109133959148049150)