Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the apology issued by Chongqing Zongshen Vehicles for allegedly infringing on the trademark rights of the automotive brands "Wenjie" and "Zhijie," leading to public confusion and concern [1][4][5]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - Chongqing Zongshen Vehicles acknowledged the inappropriate content published on their social media platforms and has taken immediate action to rectify the situation by renaming the controversial products and ceasing the dissemination of related content [1][9]. - The company expressed sincere apologies to the affected brand owners and the public, committing to strengthen internal review mechanisms to prevent future infringements [1][9]. Group 2: Market Context and Brand Information - "Zhijie" and "Wenjie" are popular automotive brands under Hongmeng Zhixing, with Chery Automobile Co., Ltd. having registered the "Zhijie" trademark in 2020, and Seres Automotive holding multiple "Wenjie" trademarks [5]. - The Wenjie brand includes models such as M5, M7, M8, and M9, while Zhijie features R7 and S7 models. In June, Hongmeng Zhixing achieved a record monthly delivery of 52,747 vehicles, marking a significant milestone in their sales history [5][6]. Group 3: Company Background and Financial Performance - Chongqing Zongshen Vehicles, established in 2001, specializes in the research, manufacturing, and sales of diverse products, including new energy vehicles and three-wheeled motorcycles [13][15]. - The company is controlled by Zuo Zongshen, with a family wealth of 7 billion RMB, ranking 754th on the 2024 Hurun Rich List [16][22]. - Zongshen Power's stock price surged nearly 300% in 2024, with a significant increase from 4 RMB per share in February to 35.13 RMB by October 31 [22]. The company reported a revenue of 10.384 billion RMB, a year-on-year increase of 29.84%, and a net profit of 461 million RMB, up 27.45% [22].

Group 1 - The company "Chongqing Zongshen Vehicle Co., Ltd." and "Jiangsu Zongshen Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd." issued an apology for content that allegedly infringed on the trademark rights of "Wenjie," "Zhijie," and "Shangjie," leading to public misunderstanding and concern [4] - The company recognized the inappropriate nature of the published content and has taken immediate action to rectify product naming, remove, and cease the dissemination of all related controversial content, while also enhancing internal review mechanisms [4] - Recently, the company launched two three-wheeled vehicle products named "Wenjie Q1" and "Zhijie S300," which were criticized for potentially infringing on the branding of Wenjie and Zhijie automobiles [4] Group 2 - The brand "Wenjie" under Hongmeng Zhixing has four models: Wenjie M5, M7, M8, and M9, while "Zhijie" has two models: Zhijie R7 and S7 [4] - In June, Hongmeng Zhixing achieved a record monthly delivery of 52,747 vehicles and a daily delivery of 3,651 vehicles, marking the highest sales in the brand's history [4] - Chongqing Zongshen Vehicle Co., Ltd. was established in 2001 with a registered capital of 20 million yuan, while Jiangsu Zongshen Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd. was founded in 2018 with the same registered capital [5] Group 3 - Zongshen Industrial Group holds a 51% stake in both Chongqing Zongshen Vehicle Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Zongshen Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd., with the actual controller being Zuo Zongshen [5] - Zongshen Power (001696) is a brother company engaged in the research, manufacturing, and sales of small and medium-sized power machinery products, leading in the motorcycle power and general power machinery sectors [5] - According to the 2024 annual report, Zongshen Power achieved an operating income of 10.384 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 29.84%, and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 461 million yuan, up 27.45% year-on-year [5]

Core Viewpoint - The company "Zongshen Intelligent Travel" issued an apology for allegedly infringing on the trademark rights of "Wenjie," "Zhijie," and "Shangjie," acknowledging the misunderstanding caused to the public and brand owners [1]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - The company recognized the inappropriate content published and has taken immediate action to rectify product naming, removing and ceasing the dissemination of all related controversial content [1]. - The company has committed to strengthening its internal review mechanisms to prevent future infringements on intellectual property rights [1]. Group 2: Product Launch and Market Presence - Zongshen held a product launch event on July 8, showcasing 128 new products and core components, although only one model, the "Zongshen Zhike S1," was officially released at the event [4][5]. - The company has previously named its electric three-wheeled vehicles with names like "Pili," "Hanjun," and "Fengbao," while its three-wheeled motorcycle products have names such as "Hongyun Dantou" and "Jinyun Lai" [5]. Group 3: Trademark and Brand Context - "Wenjie" and "Zhijie" are brands under Hongmeng Zhixing, with "Wenjie" being a collaboration between Huawei and Seres, and "Zhijie" a collaboration between Huawei and Chery [5]. - Chery Automobile Co., Ltd. registered the "Zhijie" trademark in 2020, while Seres holds multiple trademarks related to "Wenjie," classified under transportation tools [5]. Group 4: Financial Performance - Zongshen Power's 2024 annual report indicated a revenue of 10.384 billion yuan, representing a year-on-year growth of 29.84%, and a net profit of 461 million yuan, up 27.45% year-on-year [6]. - The company's stock price saw a significant increase, with an annual growth rate of nearly 300% in 2024 [6].

7月8日，坐拥800余万粉丝、认证信息为资深车评人的韩路发布消息称，重庆宗申在新品发布 会上发布两款新型电动三轮车，分别命名为"智界S300""问界Q1p"。 据了解，智界、问界均都是鸿蒙智行旗下热门汽车品牌。其中，奇瑞汽车股份有限公司2020 年就已注册通过"智界"商标，而赛力斯汽车有限公司也持有多枚"问界"相关商标。 令围观网友好奇的是，一场非汽车企业发布会上为何会出现智界、问界相关字眼。 不少声音质疑宗申此举有"碰瓷"鸿蒙智行旗下汽车品牌"智界""问界"之嫌。 对此，"宗申智慧出行"官方公众号在今日（7月10日）发布致歉声明称，公司充分认识到发布 和直播的内容不当，已立即整改相关产品命名，下架并停止传播所有相关争议内容，全面加 强内部审核机制。 图片来源：韩路微博 查询官网发现，该公司的电动三轮车产品命名包括霹雳、悍擎、途威等，三轮摩托车产品则 以鸿运当头、金运来、火云龙等命名。 天眼查显示，重庆宗申车辆有限公司现由宗申产业集团有限公司、袁理、袁德山共同持股， 分别持有51%、34.3%、14.7%，股权穿透后"重庆摩托车大王"左宗申为实际控制人。 至于落款的另一家公司江苏宗申电动车有限公司成立于201 ...

Group 1 - Chongqing Zongshen announced the launch of two new electric tricycles named "Zhi Jie S300" and "Wen Jie Q1p" at a product launch event [1] - Both "Zhi Jie" and "Wen Jie" are popular automotive brands under Hongmeng Zhixing, with Chery Automobile Co., Ltd. having registered the "Zhi Jie" trademark since 2020, and Seres Automotive Co., Ltd. holding multiple "Wen Jie" related trademarks [2] - There is public curiosity regarding the appearance of "Zhi Jie" and "Wen Jie" at a non-automotive company event [3] Group 2 - There are concerns that Zongshen's actions may be perceived as "hitching a ride" on the reputation of Hongmeng Zhixing's automotive brands [4] - Zongshen's official account issued an apology for the infringement of the "Wen Jie," "Zhi Jie," and "Shang Jie" trademarks, acknowledging the misunderstanding caused to the public and brand owners [5] - The company has committed to rectifying the naming of the products and enhancing internal review mechanisms [5] Group 3 - Chongqing Zongshen was established in 2001 and specializes in the research, development, manufacturing, and sales of new energy vehicles, three-wheeled motorcycles, and electric tricycles [7] - The company is located in the High-tech Industrial Development Zone of Bishan District, Chongqing [7] - The ownership structure of Chongqing Zongshen shows that Zongshen Industrial Group holds 51%, with other shareholders including Yuan Li and Yuan Deshan [9]

Core Viewpoint - The Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company has won a lawsuit against two other companies for false advertising, as they claimed to be associated with the "Chinese Time-honored Brand" and other historical phrases, which misled consumers about their connection to the original Lianxianglou brand [1][2][4]. Legal Proceedings - The Beijing Haidian District People's Court ruled that the two defendant companies, Guangzhou Lianlou Catering Service Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Bailian Catering Service Co., Ltd., must pay 2 million yuan in economic damages and 100,000 yuan in reasonable expenses to Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company [2][4]. - The court found that the defendants' claims constituted false advertising under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, as they did not have authorization to use phrases indicating a century-long history [3][10]. Brand and Trademark Dispute - The dispute over the Lianxianglou trademark has been ongoing for over a decade, with multiple entities operating under the Lianxianglou name in Guangzhou [1][8]. - The court acknowledged that the original Lianxianglou brand has significant market influence due to years of operation by Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company, which has integrated its history into its business [2][3]. Current Status of the Defendants - The defendant companies have acknowledged the court's ruling and have removed the disputed promotional phrases from their marketing materials [5][7]. - Both companies are currently within the appeal period but have not disclosed specific future plans [5][7]. Future Implications - Guangzhou Lianxianglou Company continues to seek exclusive rights to the Lianxianglou trademark, despite the ongoing disputes regarding the nature of the trademark authorization [11]. - The legal outcomes indicate that while the defendant companies can operate under the Lianxianglou name, they cannot claim historical associations without proper authorization [10].

"有了'天府粮仓'品牌效应，近期的柠檬订单更加供不应求了。"资阳市安岳县柠檬产业发展中心主 任田景华说，作为中国地理标志产品，安岳柠檬此次成功获得首批"天府粮仓"品牌商标授权，无疑让名 号更响亮。 近日，四川发布首批获得"天府粮仓"品牌商标授权使用的49个农业品牌及主体名单，其中包括区域 公用品牌8个、企业品牌11个、产品品牌30个。从安岳柠檬、宜宾早茶到雅江松茸、红原牦牛奶，这 些"特而精、优而美"的四川农业特色产品，正以集体品牌形象走向全球市场。 同样提振信心的还有成都天府源品牌营销策划有限公司。此前，跟随"天府粮仓"精品推介活 动，"天府源"旗下的231个产品品类已陆续走进广州、杭州、北京、上海等地。"作为成都市农产品区域 公用品牌，未来我们有更多机会向外推介成都农产品。"公司副总经理杨彩华说。 将加快推动品牌市场化运营 "接下来将着力建立健全'天府粮仓'品牌运营管理机制，加快推动品牌规范化管理、市场化运营， 促进'天府粮仓'品牌走出四川、走向世界。"四川省农业农村厅相关负责人表示。 继续培育"天府粮仓"省级公用品牌是首要任务。四川将分类有序开展商标使用授权，以粮油、畜 牧、蔬菜、水果、水产等特色优势产 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the misleading use of trademarks by companies, which often leads to consumer confusion and potential exploitation of their purchasing decisions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Misleading Trademarks - Companies are using trademarks that create confusion, such as "一品牛肉干" which is actually a pork product, misleading consumers into thinking they are purchasing beef [1]. - Examples include "小尾花黑猪肝" which misleads consumers into believing they are buying a premium product when it is just regular pork liver [2]. - The use of descriptive terms in trademarks, like "六个核桃" or "手打"挂面, does not guarantee the product's quality or characteristics, leading to consumer misconceptions [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Issues - The article highlights that many misleading trademarks have passed regulatory scrutiny, indicating potential flaws in the trademark examination process [5][9]. - The distinction between registered and unregistered trademarks is emphasized, with unregistered trademarks being easier to misuse without oversight [4]. - There is a call for improved regulatory frameworks to prevent misleading trademarks from being registered and used in the market [10][11]. Group 3: Consumer Impact - Consumers often find it difficult to seek redress when misled by trademarks, as the burden of proof lies heavily on them [8][10]. - The article notes that misleading trademarks not only harm consumers but also disrupt fair market competition, potentially driving honest businesses out of the market [8]. - There are instances where consumers have paid significantly more for products due to misleading branding, such as "壹号土" black pork ribs priced much higher than regular options [7]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - The article suggests that a multi-faceted approach is needed to address the issue, including better regulatory practices and consumer education [10][11]. - It advocates for a collaborative effort among regulatory bodies, industry associations, and consumers to create a more transparent and fair market environment [11]. - The establishment of a credit commitment system for trademark registration is proposed to penalize those who obtain trademarks through deceptive means [11].

Core Viewpoint - Companies are misleading consumers by registering confusing trademarks, which increases consumer identification costs and may lead to a loss of trust in the long run [1][2][3] Group 1: Misleading Trademarks - Many brands use ambiguous trademarks that create confusion, such as "zero" or "zero additives," which consumers interpret as natural and free from additives, despite the lack of a unified industry definition [1][2] - Brands like "多半" (more than half) mislead consumers regarding product quantity, damaging brand reputation when the actual product does not meet expectations [1] Group 2: Consumer Trust and Brand Integrity - Consumers often assume that products with similar branding to well-known brands are of comparable quality, leading to potential disappointment when the actual product does not match expectations [2] - The erosion of trust occurs when brands use clever marketing tactics that obscure the true nature of their products, making it difficult for consumers to hold companies accountable [2][3] Group 3: Increased Consumer Identification Costs - The use of misleading trademarks complicates the purchasing process, increasing the difficulty for consumers to make informed decisions and leading to negative experiences [3] - Instances of brands claiming to be "sugar-free" while containing sugar illustrate how deceptive marketing can damage consumer trust and brand integrity [3]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing trademark infringement dispute between Huizhou NVC Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. and Shandong NVC Lighting Development Co., Ltd. has gained significant attention, with the Supreme People's Court and other authorities confirming that Shandong Development's unauthorized use of Huizhou NVC's registered trademark constitutes trademark infringement [1][4]. Group 1: Trademark Infringement Details - The Supreme People's Court confirmed the validity of the termination agreement between Huizhou NVC and Shandong Development, which ended all cooperation and trademark authorization as of June 15, 2015 [2][3]. - Despite the termination of trademark rights, the court ruled that the agreement did not explicitly terminate Shandong Development's use of the "NVC" name, leading to a rejection of Huizhou NVC's request to change the company name [3]. - The court emphasized that Shandong Development must not use the "NVC" name in a way that could confuse consumers, particularly in contexts beyond the company name [3]. Group 2: Legal Actions and Consequences - The Tianjin People's Court ruled that Shandong Development's use of the "NVC" name in a manner that could confuse consumers constitutes trademark infringement, requiring them to cease production and sales of infringing products [4]. - Huizhou NVC has issued a lawyer's letter demanding that Shandong Development stop unauthorized use of its registered trademark, threatening criminal liability for continued infringement [5]. - The State Administration for Market Regulation initiated a comprehensive investigation into the trademark infringement case, confirming that Shandong Development's authorization to use the trademark had been terminated since August 31, 2015 [6].