1. The reason for opposition is obvious. Since China also participates in the investment, we certainly don't want the name of the firm to be American, because it is a joint venture company, not a wholly-owned company. A mutually beneficial name is "getting in and out of the elevator". 2. The solution of this problem depends on how the English text of the feasibility study report is expressed. Because the expression in English must be clearer than that in Chinese, we can see the exact meaning at that time. Because according to the Chinese side, there is actually a contradiction: the United States underwrites 25% of the export volume, and the remaining 75% is sold in China. This means that 25% of products are exported from the United States and 75% are sold at home. However, "the export channels of the joint venture company are Dabel company, joint venture company and China foreign trade company", but I believe that the joint venture company has other export channels besides the United States. Whether this "rest" is all products or licensed products is the root of the dispute! There is no way to distinguish right from wrong on this issue, because the original clause itself is not clearly stipulated, so it can be further clarified.

Lawyer Wu Xuanhua of Tang Wei Law Firm.