事实果真如此吗？在接受扬子晚报/紫牛新闻记者采访时，江苏天察律师事务所徐驰律师指出，该行为 已涉嫌商标侵权及虚假宣传。从商标权角度分析，达美乐作为全球知名品牌，其商标"Domino's Pizza"及logo受《商标法》保护。楼盘使用的"大美乐披萨"招牌，不仅英文名称完全相同，logo设计也 高度近似，这种修改使用方式极易导致公众混淆，符合《商标法》第五十七条中"未经商标注册人许 可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标近似的商标"的侵权情形。 从虚假宣传角度分析，楼盘销售中心将山寨招牌作为招商道具，可能误导招商对象认为该楼盘已引入达 美乐品牌，从而做出缔约决定。这种行为违反了《反不正当竞争法》中关于禁止虚假宣传的规定，也损 害了消费者的知情权。据此，徐驰律师建议楼盘方立即撤换山寨招牌，避免带来进一步法律风险。 扬子晚报网12月2日讯（记者 郭一鹏） 近日，有网友在社交平台发帖称，在广西桂林街头看到一家门店 张贴着"大美乐披萨"的招牌。"乍一看，我还以为是达美乐，不但logo高度相似，英文名称也完全相 同，均为'Domino's Pizza'。" 记者从该网友发布的图片上看到，"大美乐披萨"和达美乐非常相像，几乎能 ...

今年"双11"促销活动已收官。相比往年，今年的促销活动启动早、周期长，各平台企业纷纷推动AI导 购、即时零售等新模式落地，从流量竞争转向更注重用户价值的质量竞争。与此同时，消费者投诉焦点 仍集中于价格问题，聚焦规则透明度。 值得关注的是，今年"双11"期间，智能科技、虚拟商品等新兴消费品类投诉显著增长。江苏南京市的朱 先生在"双11"期间购买了投影仪，"商家宣传8K画质、白天直投无压力，实际画质模糊得连字幕都看不 清"。他提出"退一赔三"，协商后商家仅同意提供数十元补偿。 梳理投诉留言还可以发现，智能产品投诉量增速最快，与去年相比增加了72.6%，多因功能宣传与实际 体验不符，如无人机避障失灵、扫地机器人故障频发，且售后维修困难。虚拟服务类则因服务内容与宣 传不符，如线上课程质量缩水、卡券账号充值后无法使用或限制多，且维权时举证困难。 另外，健康类产品投诉增长36.2%，主要涉及药品质量问题、保健用品虚假宣传、实际效果不佳等。庞 隽认为，与智能科技类产品不同，健康类产品和虚拟服务的投诉增长，并不是技术成熟度不足的问题， 而是由商家的"过度承诺"和"规则模糊化设计"等不规范营销行为所导致的。商家应当遵守诚信原则 ...

前不久，家住北京市通州区的文女士发现，家中1岁宝宝流鼻涕迟迟不见好转，而出现张嘴呼吸、张嘴睡觉的情况，文女士担心这样下去会影响宝宝的"颜 值"。在刷短视频时，文女士发现了一款名为"袋鼠杰克婴童植萃舒鼻膏"的产品，直播间中主播介绍该产品可以用于流鼻涕鼻塞等情况，于是决定买来试 试。 产品到手后，文女士发现，该产品为儿童化妆品，并标有儿童化妆品标志（"小金盾"）。化妆品可以涂在鼻腔吗？最终，文女士并没有给宝宝使用。 根据文女士反映的情况，新京报记者近期调查发现，这款名为"袋鼠杰克婴童植萃舒鼻膏"的儿童化妆品，在直播间里被包装成改善腺样体面容、鼻部不适等 问题的"神器"，但实际备案功效仅为面部保湿、舒缓。主播在介绍产品时，引导家长将产品挤入儿童鼻腔使用的行为，也与包装标注的"涂抹于鼻子周围肌 肤"严重不符。此外，企业宣称"35年国货老品牌"，实际成立时间仅6年，商标申请仅1年。律师认为，经营者在销售商品时暗示宣传普通化妆品具有"改善腺 样体面容、过敏性鼻炎"等疾病治疗作用，涉嫌违反多项法律规定。此外，经营者虚构"35年国货老品牌""亚洲500强"等与企业实际情况不符的内容的行为， 或构成虚假广告。 宣称可改善腺样体 ...

宣称可应对多种口腔问题 "喷一下在你牙齿上，实在是太舒服了，喷了之后，从牙龈到整个脑袋，都是说不出来的放松。""别以为问题大了才需要爱护我们的牙齿，这个要按头安利 给你们，直接喷就可以。"从今年9月份开始，一款名为康字头云南本草伢痛宁草本护理喷剂的广告频繁出现在部分电视剧的贴片广告中。按照广告中的说 法，该产品能够应对多种口腔问题，"不管你的牙齿敏感有多严重，哪怕已经好几年了，你就试试这个；适合牙齿敏感、牙龈出血、牙口不好的朋友；什么 样的牙齿问题，都不在话下，牙龈活跃晃动、肿胀、张不开嘴，吃不下饭，你就换成这个就好了。" 记者注意到，该广告有几个不同版本，内容大致相似，均宣称该款护理喷剂可针对多种口腔问题。关于产品的功效，几个版本的广告都出现了颇为夸张的内 容，如"晚上用，白天千万别用，因为我怕效果太猛，你吓到自己""喷完你就看，原本咬不动核桃的牙现在敢嗑瓜子，原来喝个凉水都疼的牙现在冰棍随便 吃""没必要天天去喷，不严重的就一天喷一次，因为它太猛了。你自己都不敢相信，不是顽固的牙齿肿胀，你都不要去用，我怕你觉得不可思议"等。 "什么样的牙齿问题，都不在话下，牙龈活跃、晃动、肿胀，张不开嘴，吃不下饭，你就换 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing court case regarding Xiaomi's "carbon fiber hood" has attracted significant public attention, focusing on whether the promotional statements made by Xiaomi's founder Lei Jun constitute misleading advertising and if the features of optional components align with the promotional claims [1][12]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The recent court hearing did not result in an immediate verdict, with Xiaomi's civil defense indicating that the core dispute revolves around the promotional statements made by Lei Jun on social media [1]. - Xiaomi's legal team presented 84 pages of new evidence during the initial hearing, which led to a postponement of the trial [5]. - The new evidence includes critical assertions such as "Lei Jun does not understand structure, his Weibo posts do not count" and "the 42,000 yuan accessory is not a key factor in purchasing the car" [5]. Group 2: Implications of New Evidence - Legal expert Zhou Rui analyzed the implications of the statement "Lei Jun does not understand structure" and its potential impact on the case, emphasizing the significant influence of a company's founder in promotional activities [6]. - Zhou noted that the founder's public statements could be considered promotional under Chinese laws against unfair competition and advertising, which could lead to legal liabilities if found misleading [6]. - Denying the authority of a founder's public statements could have far-reaching consequences for the company's marketing strategies, as it raises questions about the validity of claims made by all sales personnel [6]. Group 3: Background of the Case - The controversy began in May when Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra, which had only been delivered for two months, faced backlash over its optional carbon fiber hood [7]. - Customers participating in the lawsuit argue that the actual functionality of the 42,000 yuan carbon fiber hood does not match the promotional claims made by Xiaomi, alleging false advertising [12].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Xiaomi's diving watch has escalated due to user complaints about water damage, leading to a lawsuit alleging false advertising regarding the watch's waterproof capabilities [1][6][15] Group 1: Incident Overview - A user reported that their Xiaomi Watch S4 Sport, advertised with a 40-meter diving capability, suffered water damage after four days of use while diving [2][5] - The customer service response indicated that the watch is not recommended for diving, which sparked widespread discussion and ridicule online [4][5] Group 2: Legal Action - Lawyer Hu Youru announced plans to sue Xiaomi for false advertising, claiming the watch's 5ATM waterproof rating is misleading given the typical requirements for swimming and professional diving [6][11] - The lawsuit highlights discrepancies between the advertised features and the actual performance of the watch, particularly regarding its waterproof certification [11][13] Group 3: Xiaomi's Response - Xiaomi issued a statement denying any false advertising, claiming that the customer service recording was misrepresented and that the watch is certified for various diving modes [13][14] - The company acknowledged service shortcomings but maintained that the watch meets the EN13319 international diving certification standards [14][15] Group 4: Ongoing Developments - Hu Youru confirmed that he has submitted the lawsuit and plans to provide additional materials as required by the court [15] - The core issue remains whether the watch's 5ATM rating is sufficient for diving, with Hu expressing doubts about its safety and performance [15]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the issue of false advertising in consumer scenarios and provides a comprehensive guide on effective complaint channels to resolve disputes [1][2][5] Group 1: Initial Communication - The first step in addressing false advertising is to communicate directly with the merchant through official customer service channels [1][2] - Examples of communication methods include contacting customer service on e-commerce platforms, visiting physical stores with promotional materials, and calling the merchant's hotline [1][2] - A case is presented where a consumer received a refund after reporting a weight loss product that did not deliver promised results [1] Group 2: Advanced Rights Protection - The 12315 national platform serves as a primary channel for consumer rights protection, offering a structured complaint process with enforceability [2][3] - Consumers can submit complaints via phone or online, and must provide evidence such as promotional screenshots and purchase receipts [2] - A case is highlighted where a training institution was penalized for false advertising after a complaint was filed through 12315 [3] Group 3: Third-Party Complaint Platforms - Black Cat Complaints, a third-party platform, enhances the visibility of complaints, prompting quicker responses from companies [4] - The process involves using a mini-program to submit complaints, with tips on how to effectively describe the issue [4] - Industry-specific complaint channels are recommended for targeted issues, such as tourism and financial products [4] Group 4: Legal Measures - If previous channels fail, legal actions such as filing a lawsuit or arbitration can be pursued [5] - Necessary materials for court include a complaint statement and evidence list, with specific courts designated based on the defendant's location [5] - Collective lawsuits can be initiated for systemic false advertising cases [5] Group 5: Key Principles for Rights Protection - Evidence is crucial at all stages, including saving promotional materials and maintaining records of purchases and communications [5] - Timeliness is emphasized, with a recommendation to act quickly upon discovering false advertising [5] - A strategic approach combining initial communication, formal complaints, and legal action is advised for effective resolution [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the dangerous nature of the tiger hornet, also known as the wasp, and discusses the misleading marketing practices surrounding its sale for purported medicinal benefits, which are not supported by evidence [1]. Industry Summary - The tiger hornet is known for its aggressive behavior and has been linked to serious injuries and fatalities [1]. - Some businesses are exploiting the tiger hornet's reputation by selling products like tiger hornet wine, claiming they have healing properties, which is described as a marketing gimmick [1]. - The primary profit source for hornet farming appears to be the sale of hornet pupae rather than the medicinal products [1]. Company Summary - A manager from a hornet farming operation in Qiwang County, Leshan, Sichuan, stated that the tiger hornet wine sold online lacks any real therapeutic effect and is merely a tactic to attract customers [1]. - Staff from a honeybee farm in Baoshan, Yunnan, confirmed that claims regarding the medicinal benefits of tiger hornet wine are false, emphasizing that it does not function as a medicine and is based on psychological effects [1].

新华社消息，"25岁的我勇敢从大厂离职""37岁，年薪百万，我却从互联网大厂离职""从大厂裸辞两年 的我，如今过得怎么样"……近期，"大厂离职"成为社交媒体上的热词。但与此同时，有人虚构大厂前 员工、高管身份，通过"蹭大厂流量"提供名不副实的服务，以求实现商业牟利。 发现相关情况后，涉事教育公司被诉至湖南省长沙市开福区人民法院。法院认为，被告行为在客观上欺 骗、误导消费者，易对相关公众造成认知偏差，增加了公众选择服务提供者时的决策成本，同时抢夺了 同行业其他经营者的公平交易机会，扰乱了公平竞争的市场秩序，侵害了经营者与相关公众的合法权 益，构成引人误解的虚假宣传行为。 今年7月，法院判决被告在媒体上刊登声明，消除因侵权行为对原告造成的不良影响，并向原告支付经 济损失及合理开支5万元。 抖音集团相关负责人对记者表示，近年来，虚构公司前员工身份对外引流获利的情况屡见不鲜。近期， 又有人以公司高管名义在社交媒体上大量注册账号引流，对外开展培训并收取高额费用。"经内部核 实，此人连公司试用期都未通过，却对外声称是公司的人力资源总监。" "我们去年通过多种方式对外辟谣冒充骑手和前员工的事件超过100起。"一家外卖企业相 ...

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi is facing a significant trust crisis due to misleading marketing practices and legal disputes, which could harm its brand reputation and consumer trust in the long run [1][4][7]. Group 1: Marketing and Brand Image - Recent allegations suggest that Xiaomi's "giant energy-saving" air conditioner label misleads consumers, as it does not reflect actual performance metrics [1]. - Xiaomi's dual brand identity as both a cost-effective internet retail brand and a high-end product service brand creates confusion in its market positioning [5][10]. - The company's marketing strategies, including the use of "hunger marketing," have drawn criticism for potentially misleading consumers and creating a negative perception [23][24]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Challenges - Xiaomi has faced legal challenges, including a lawsuit from a car owner regarding misleading advertising, which has been interpreted as an attempt to complicate consumer rights [1]. - Reports indicate that Xiaomi has been targeted by regulatory scrutiny for its marketing practices, with potential new regulations on false advertising being discussed [14]. Group 3: Financial Performance and Market Sentiment - According to a report from Goldman Sachs, Xiaomi has become a consensus short target among hedge funds, with its stock price dropping nearly 30% since June due to rising chip costs and declining profit margins [3]. - The company has seen a significant increase in consumer complaints, particularly in its home appliance sector, indicating growing dissatisfaction with product quality [26]. Group 4: Product Development and Innovation - Xiaomi's strategy of maintaining low profit margins on hardware has been a double-edged sword, as it struggles to compete in high-end markets where quality and innovation are paramount [9][12]. - The company has made strides in chip development, with its self-developed 3nm chip "Xuanjie O1" entering mass production, but it still relies heavily on external suppliers for critical components [25]. Group 5: Industry Position and Competitive Landscape - Xiaomi's approach of aggressive pricing and market entry has raised concerns about its impact on industry standards and the long-term viability of competitors [31][32]. - The company is caught in a struggle between being perceived as a low-cost provider and a premium brand, which complicates its competitive strategy in various sectors, including smartphones and electric vehicles [12][30].