Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding "clever trademarks" in the food industry, particularly focusing on the case of White Elephant Food's "Duoban" trademark, which misleads consumers regarding product weight and content [2][10][12]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - White Elephant Food's "Duoban" trademark is criticized for misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing a larger quantity of noodles than what is actually provided [3][14]. - The term "Duoban" is a registered trademark rather than an actual weight measurement, leading to public outrage and perceptions of deception [4][7]. - The phenomenon of "clever trademarks" is not isolated, with other examples including "Yipin Beef Jerky" and "Qianhe 0" soy sauce, which also mislead consumers through similar tactics [8][26]. Group 2: Misleading Marketing Practices - The essence of "clever trademarks" lies in exploiting information asymmetry to mislead consumer perceptions [12][13]. - Companies often use visual marketing strategies that create misconceptions about product quantity or quality, as seen with the "Duoban" noodles and "Gongang" milk [15][16]. - The use of split terminology in trademarks can create positive associations in consumers' minds, further complicating the issue of misleading branding [20][21]. Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Framework - The registration of misleading trademarks often occurs because the trademark examination process does not identify them as deceptive at the time of application [39][40]. - The article highlights the challenges in trademark regulation, noting that existing laws may not adequately prevent the registration of misleading trademarks [31][38]. - Legal remedies exist for consumers misled by such trademarks, including the possibility of punitive damages and collective lawsuits [59][60]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - The article suggests that stricter regulations and standards should be established to prevent the misuse of terms like "zero additives" and "natural" in marketing [71][72]. - Companies are encouraged to prioritize integrity and transparency in their branding practices to build consumer trust [76][78]. - Enhanced consumer education is recommended to help the public critically assess product labels and marketing claims rather than relying solely on trademarks [79].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing efforts by market regulatory authorities in China to protect intellectual property rights, particularly focusing on trademark infringement cases, with significant actions taken against violators in various regions [1]. Group 1: Trademark Infringement Cases - In March 2024, the Jiangsu Province market regulatory authority investigated a case involving Suzhou Kaidong Clothing Accessories Co., which was found to be selling products infringing on the "YKK" trademark, leading to a criminal referral due to the severity of the case [2][3]. - The Shanghai Yangpu District market regulatory authority imposed a fine of 660,000 yuan on Shanghai Aidojun Cultural Communication Co. for facilitating trademark infringement by promoting counterfeit products on an internet video platform [4][5]. - The Guangdong Province market regulatory authority seized 3,448 boxes of counterfeit "Kayou" anime card products and imposed penalties on 12 individuals involved in the infringement [6][7]. - The Shandong Province market regulatory authority investigated a case involving a clothing studio that produced counterfeit "ERDOS" cashmere products, leading to a criminal referral due to the nature of the violations [8][9]. - The Shanxi Province market regulatory authority uncovered a scheme involving Shanxi Mingjia Paper Industry Co. that produced counterfeit "Vinda" sanitary products, with a total value of over 3.12 million yuan in infringing goods [10][11]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions and Strategies - The regulatory authorities are employing advanced methods, including cross-regional collaboration and the use of technology, to effectively combat trademark infringement and protect intellectual property rights [9][13]. - The article emphasizes the importance of cooperation between regulatory bodies, trademark owners, and online platforms to enhance the efficiency of enforcement actions against counterfeit products [5][12]. - The case involving malicious trademark registration by He Mousheng highlights the challenges of combating trademark squatting, with 102 trademarks registered without intent to use, showcasing the need for stricter regulations [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights consumer dissatisfaction with misleading marketing practices by brands, specifically regarding the weight claims of instant noodle products from Bai Xiang and Jin Mai Lang, which do not meet the advertised 1.5 times weight compared to their classic versions [1][4][5] Group 1: Product Claims and Comparisons - Bai Xiang's "Duoban Tong" and Jin Mai Lang's "Yitong Ban" instant noodles are marketed as having 1.5 times the quantity, but actual weights fall short of this claim [1] - Jin Mai Lang's "Yitong Ban" is supposed to weigh 127.5 grams based on the 1.5 times claim, but it only weighs 110 grams [1] - Bai Xiang's "Duoban Tong" also fails to deliver on its promise, with a weight of 110 grams compared to the classic version's 85 grams [1] Group 2: Pricing Discrepancies - Bai Xiang's "Duoban Tong" is priced significantly higher than its classic version, with the former costing 6.66 yuan per unit compared to 2.83 yuan for the classic version, indicating a price increase of over 100% [3] Group 3: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The use of misleading trademarks like "Duoban Tong" and "Yitong Ban" raises ethical concerns, as they exploit consumer habits and can be seen as deceptive marketing [4][5] - The article references previous controversies involving similar misleading trademarks in the consumer goods sector, indicating a broader issue within the industry [4] - Legal frameworks in China, such as the Trademark Law and food safety standards, emphasize the need for honesty and clarity in marketing, which these brands appear to violate [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding certain food products that use misleading branding and labeling, leading to consumer backlash and questions about the legality and ethics of such practices [1][2][3] Group 1: Misleading Branding - Several food products, such as "壹号土猪肉" and "千禾0酱油," have been criticized for using ambiguous terms that mislead consumers about their true nature [1] - The recent case of "多半袋面" and "多半桶面" highlights how consumers felt deceived when they discovered that the products did not contain the expected quantity [1] - Companies involved, like 壹号食品 and 白象集团, defended their practices by stating that they do not deceive consumers and that their products meet certain standards [1][2] Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Aspects - Experts indicate that the registration of such trademarks may not have been thoroughly scrutinized, as the concept of "土" (earthy) has gained popularity over time [2] - The legality of using these trademarks depends on the context and manner of their use, and even registered trademarks can be declared invalid if they violate legal standards [2] - The article emphasizes that companies must be cautious, as consumer protection laws can lead to penalties if products do not align with consumer expectations [2] Group 3: Consumer Trust and Perception - Consumer trust is crucial, as brands serve as a quick reference for product quality and origin; misleading branding can erode this trust [3] - When brands deviate from consumer understanding, they risk criticism and damage to their reputation, questioning the value of their branding strategies [3] - The article uses a humorous analogy to illustrate the absurdity of misleading branding, suggesting that companies should avoid becoming a joke in the eyes of consumers [3]

Core Viewpoint - White Elephant Foods is facing a trademark dispute regarding its "Duoban" product line, leading to a rebranding of its products to "Noodle Cake 120g" and "Noodle Cake 110g" [1][3]. Group 1: Trademark Dispute - The company announced that it will stop producing the original packaging products by the end of the month [1][3]. - The agency responsible for handling the "Duoban" trademark indicated that registering such trademarks has become increasingly difficult [1][3]. - White Elephant Foods first applied for the "Duoban" trademark in September 2018, which underwent multiple stages including rejection and re-examination before successful registration [3]. Group 2: Product Rebranding - The rebranding decision was made to distinguish the larger 110-120g products from the standard 70g offerings, facilitating consumer choice [4]. - The company will cease using the "Duoban" and "Duoyiban" product names moving forward [3]. Group 3: Trademark Registration Process - The "Duoban" trademark faced several challenges, including a rejection in March 2021, followed by a successful re-examination in May 2021 [3]. - The agency that registered the trademark for White Elephant Foods is Beijing Jijia Intellectual Property Agency [3].

其进一步称，"现在申请这类商标比较难了，审核越来越严，很容易被驳回，像土猪只申请一个'土'这 种不行的了。但具体还是要看实际情况，如果企业重视的话要去争取。同时也要看品牌是不是在市场上 积累了一定知名度，跟商标形成唯一对应关系。只要不违反商标法，初审被驳回后走复审，一审二审还 是可以继续争取的，我们有专业律师，也会提供具体的方案。" 南都记者从中国商标网获悉，白象食品申请"多半"商标最早可以追溯到2018年9月，商标流程详情显 示，该商标经历了被驳回、复审、再申请、答辩等多个环节，最终成功注册。代理机构为北京集佳知识 产权代理有限公司，该商标与近期受到争议的"多半"商标图案类似，后者由河南知一公司负责。 河南知一于2020年11月5日代理申请的"多半袋"商标被驳回，而同一日申请的"多半"商标在2021年9月7 日成功注册。南都记者注意到，这一"多半"商标曾于2021年3月被驳回过一次，后于同年5月复审。此 外，该公司还曾代理申请"多半袋2代"等商标均被驳回。 南都此前报道，针对"多半"商标相关争议，白象食品发布致歉声明回应称，"多半"产品，是基于原70克 面饼基础上推出的110-120克面饼的大分量产品。"多 ...

白象"多半"商标争议风波未止，又有网友指出，今麦郎1袋半系列产品的"1袋半"也是商标，质疑其玩文 字游戏。对此，6月6日，今麦郎客服人员向南都记者表示，"产品确实是有一袋半的量。我们看到消费 者一袋面不够吃，两袋又吃不完，于是推出了1桶半、1袋半产品。"南都记者注意到，今麦郎曾多次申 请"1袋半"商标被驳回。 今麦郎"1袋半"方便面。 南都记者注意到，今麦郎旗舰店里的"1袋半"系列方便面已成为主推产品，产品包装上的"1袋半"字样是 醒目的大号蓝色字体，右上角附有"TM"标识，表明该商标正在受理注册中。包装上还标注了"120克超 大面饼超满足"。今麦郎另一系列"汤真好"泡面的面饼净含量为88克。 据中国商标网，2015年起，今麦郎曾屡次尝试注册"1袋半"商标。除2024年9月19日申请的"1袋半"商标 显示为"等待实质审查"，2023年5月18日所申请的商标显示"驳回复审中"以外，其余"1袋半"商标状态均 为"申请被驳回，不予受理"。 6月6日，今麦郎客服向南都记者表示，"'1袋半'产品确实是有一袋半的量。2015年，我们看到消费者一 袋面不够吃，两袋又吃不完，于是推出了1桶半、1袋半产品。" 南都此前报道，多 ...

中华商标协会商标海外维权工作委员会 中国企业海外商标 品牌发展报告 中国大陆企业近10年海外商标布局与维权 趋势分析（2015-2024） 报告编写单位 中华商标协会商标海外维权工作委员会 科睿唯安信息服务（北京）有限公司 超凡知识产权服务股份有限公司 中国企业海外商标品牌发展报告 中国大陆企业近10年海外商标布局与维权趋势分析（2015-2024) 前言 2015年至2024年，"一带一路"倡议有力推动了企业拓展新兴市场，跨境电 商呈现爆发式增长，促使中国企业积极布局海外商标。与此同时，国内市场竞争 日趋激烈，品牌出海成为新的增长点。在此背景下，中国大陆企业在海外商标申 请和纠纷案件方面均呈现显著增长趋势。中国企业的国际化进程不断加速，但也 面临着知识产权保护与侵权的双重挑战。本报告深入分析了中国大陆企业近10年 海外商标申请趋势及近10年海外商标纠纷情况，希望借此为中国大陆企业提供有 益的启示和参考。 目录 一、中国大陆企业海外商标布局情况分析 | （一）近10年中国大陆企业的海外商标申请趋势 | 01 | | --- | --- | | 1.数量激增 | 01 | | 2.地域分布变化 | 01 | | ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Bai Xiang has apologized for the misleading use of the trademark "Duo Ban," which was intended to differentiate its products but led to consumer confusion [1][2]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - Bai Xiang's "Duo Ban" trademark was criticized for playing with words, prompting an apology and a commitment to adjust product packaging to avoid consumer misunderstanding [1]. - The company's initial response was dismissive, asserting that the product's weight was clearly indicated on the packaging, reflecting a level of confidence in their marketing strategy [1][2]. - Similar trademark controversies have been noted in the industry, with examples including "Shan Li Lai De Tu" and "0 Sugar" claims, indicating a trend of misleading branding practices [1][2]. Group 2: Regulatory Environment - The registration of misleading trademarks often exploits loopholes in trademark law, as many terms do not directly violate prohibitive regulations, allowing for creative interpretations [2]. - The trademark law includes provisions against deceptive and misleading trademarks, but enforcement is often lax, leading to the registration of potentially misleading brands [2]. - The case of Bai Xiang highlights the ethical implications of such practices, emphasizing the importance of honesty in business to avoid significant financial repercussions, as seen in other companies facing backlash [2]. Group 3: Consumer Sentiment and Regulatory Recommendations - Consumers are generally not opposed to creative trademarks but are against deceptive practices, suggesting that transparency could enhance brand acceptance [3]. - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to expand the list of prohibited terms to better protect consumers from misleading claims [3].

"多半""一倍半""一桶半"……倘若不是白象被揪出来道歉，消费者万万想不到：方便面企业商标竞争如 此内卷，商标"创新"如此五花八门。 企业你争我赶，把心思都花在这上面，商标的意义就从保护合法权益变成了不正当竞争。 没有不透风的墙，总有较真的顾客。鸡贼式的商标"创新"，短期内搭上了营销快车，似乎让竞争对手望 尘莫及，但长远看会慢慢侵蚀消费者对品牌的好感和信任。 在更广泛的市场范围，此类商标策略，企业趋之若鹜。2024年下半年至今，仅就被网友曝光成为社交平 台热搜的商标争议，就包括简爱"其他没了"酸奶、"千禾0"酱油、"壹号土"猪、晨光"供港"牛奶等企业 和商品。 消费者的疑惑是多层次的。比如挑选方便面，可能思量"是否真比别家多装半袋面饼"？一转身，当事企 业声明："这是商标"，且"多半"指的是基于自家原有产品的分量加码。同样的逻辑，"千禾0"和"壹号 土"是不是真商标，是不是零添加，企业总能有一套自己的说法。 商标法有规定，带有欺骗性，容易使公众对商品的质量等特点或者产地产生误认的，不得作为商标使 用；仅直接表示商品的质量、主要原料、功能、用途、重量、数量及其他特点的，不得作为商标注册。 当"土鸡蛋""土猪肉" ...