千笔楼丨不要在商标上和消费者玩“文字游戏”

Core Viewpoint - The trademark "Qianhe 0+" has been declared invalid by the National Intellectual Property Administration, reigniting discussions about misleading marketing practices related to product labeling and consumer trust [2][5]. Group 1: Trademark and Consumer Perception - The "Qianhe 0" soy sauce was previously criticized for cadmium exceeding safety limits, leading to public debate about the implications of the "0" and "zero additive" claims [3][5]. - Consumers often associate trademarks like "0" and "0+" with "zero additives," but companies clarify that these are merely registered trademarks, and actual product content must be verified through ingredient lists [3][5]. - Many consumers feel misled by the marketing tactics that emphasize "zero additives" while the ingredient lists reveal the presence of preservatives and colorants [3][6]. Group 2: Misleading Marketing Practices - The practice of using ambiguous terms like "zero sugar" often means low sugar content rather than no sugar, misleading consumers about the actual product [6][8]. - Various products exploit similar marketing strategies, where the prominent labeling of "zero additives" creates a false impression of complete absence of additives [6][8]. - The trend of using misleading labels is met with consumer backlash, as many feel deceived by these tactics [8][9]. Group 3: Regulatory and Ethical Considerations - The National Health Commission and the State Administration for Market Regulation have issued guidelines to standardize food labeling, prohibiting terms like "not added" and "zero added" to prevent misleading claims [9][11]. - Companies are urged to maintain integrity in their branding and marketing, as misleading practices can lead to a loss of consumer trust and ultimately harm their reputation [9][11]. - The emphasis on ethical marketing and product quality is essential for long-term success, as consumers are increasingly prioritizing transparency and safety in their purchasing decisions [11].