Core Points - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" (多半) slogan of White Elephant instant noodles highlights a significant issue of consumer trust and brand integrity in marketing practices [1][2][3] - The use of ambiguous language in branding, such as registering common phrases as trademarks, is seen as a manipulation of consumer perception, leading to potential legal and ethical violations [2][3] - The incident reflects a broader trend in the industry where companies prioritize short-term sales over long-term brand reputation, risking irreversible damage to their image [2][3] Company Summary - White Elephant's marketing strategy of using "Duoban" as a trademark instead of a weight descriptor has sparked consumer backlash and raised questions about the company's integrity [1][2] - The company's response to the controversy, including an apology, indicates recognition of the potential long-term consequences of such marketing tactics [2] Industry Summary - The incident is part of a larger pattern in the food and consumer goods industry where misleading marketing practices are becoming more common, leading to a "broken windows effect" [2] - Regulatory bodies are urged to enhance trademark examination standards to prevent consumer deception through the registration of everyday language as trademarks [3] - The shift from "traffic economy" to "retention economy" in the Chinese market emphasizes the need for companies to focus on genuine product innovation rather than clever marketing gimmicks [2][3]

遭遇商标侵权，"雪王"二审胜诉，获赔80万元。 近日，呼和浩特市中级人民法院在其官方微信公众号披露了呼和浩特知识产权法庭审结的"蜜雪冰 城"诉"蜜念雪"商标侵权及不正当竞争案。 案情显示，蜜雪冰城公司是国内知名茶饮连锁品牌，系"蜜雪冰城""蜜雪"系列商标的商标专用权人。 内蒙古蜜念雪商贸有限公司（简称"内蒙古蜜念雪"）注册了"蜜念雪"系列商标，并特许他人使用该商标 经营饮品店销售果汁、奶茶、冰淇淋、茶饮料等产品。被特许人经营的店铺门头、店铺装饰，销售的产 品及其包装、外包装、附属物（吸管等）使用了"蜜念雪""密念雪"等标识。 蜜雪冰城公司认为内蒙古蜜念雪及部分特许店铺的行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，遂诉至法院，要求 停止侵权、赔偿经济损失及合理支出，并以公告方式登报消除影响。 法院认为"蜜雪冰城""蜜雪"属于臆造词，经过蜜雪冰城公司的长期宣传和使用，具有较强的显著性和知 名度；结合"蜜念雪"与"蜜雪冰城"文字的重合度，加之有证据表明内蒙古蜜念雪的特许经营店曾使用与 蜜雪冰城公司相同的颜色（红色）作为门头及店内装饰色，相关公众施以一般注意力，容易误认为内蒙 古蜜念雪及其特许经营店与蜜雪冰城公司之间存在特定的联系 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the prevalence of misleading trademarks in various industries, particularly in food and consumer products, highlighting the deceptive practices that mislead consumers about product characteristics and quality [1][3]. Group 1: Misleading Trademarks in Food Industry - Bai Xiang instant noodles' trademark "多半" misleads consumers into thinking they are purchasing a "多半袋" (half bag) of noodles [1]. - Other examples include Qianhe's soy sauce labeled as "千禾0" implying zero additives, and Yuanqi Forest's tea products that confuse "0 sugar" and "0 cane sugar" [1]. - Brands like Pucheng Dairy and various noodle brands use terms like "高端无添加" (high-end no additives) and "手擀" (handmade) to create false impressions about their products [1]. Group 2: Deceptive Practices Beyond Food - The article notes that misleading trademarks are not limited to food, with electronic products using terms like "120W" that may not reflect actual power [3]. - Brands create confusion by using similar names to well-known brands, such as "小天才特×" and "胖都来," which can mislead consumers [1][3]. Group 3: Trademark Registration Issues - The trademark registration process includes formal and substantive reviews, but subjective interpretations can lead to misleading trademarks being approved [3]. - Some applicants exploit loopholes by splitting trademarks or applying in multiple categories to bypass scrutiny [3]. - Examples include the "壹号土" trademark, which could mislead consumers into thinking it relates to "土猪肉" (local pork) [3]. Group 4: Importance of Integrity in Business - The article emphasizes that integrity is crucial for businesses, especially in the food industry, where consumer health is at stake [4]. - Companies must be accountable for the authenticity of their trademarks to build consumer trust in product quality and safety [4]. - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to monitor and penalize businesses with invalid trademarks to maintain market integrity [4].

这也反映出，当营销话术与消费者常识认知出现偏差时，即便符合法规字面要求，也容易引发信任危 机。白象作为这一行业的头部企业之一，更应珍惜多年积累的市场信誉。 6月4日晚间，@白象食品发表声明称，目前公司在售的"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。"多一半"是基于原60克面饼推出的100克面饼的产品。"多半"商标申请 注册的初心是为了与常规分量产品做区分，便于消费者选购。并称如因此给消费者造成误解，公司诚挚 地表示歉意。 解释也解释了，道歉也道歉了，但这个"解释"与"道歉"其实并没有回答最初媒体的质疑。在潇湘晨报的 实地调查中，白象某款产品包装显著标注了"多半袋/桶面"，但面饼实际增量仅25克（普通款85克，"多 半"款110克），并没有达到消费者预期的"多一半"。所以，所谓"多半""多一半"的说辞，无论怎么解 释，都改变不了其误导消费者的事实。 或许在企业看来，这种"创意"是常见的营销策略，但问题的关键在于，当商标用语与日常语义存在明显 差异时，企业是否有义务作出更醒目的提示？从现有包装看，涉事产品的设计，无疑在客观上误导了消 费者。 事实上，这并非白象首次使用"多半" ...

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" (多半) trademark of White Elephant Foods has sparked significant consumer disappointment and raised questions about the company's marketing practices [1][2]. Group 1: Company Response - White Elephant Foods confirmed that "Duoban" is indeed a trademark and not an indication of increased product weight, clarifying that the actual weight is as stated on the packaging [1][2]. - The company issued an apology on June 4, stating that the "Duoban" products are larger versions based on their original 70g and 60g noodles, aimed at differentiating from standard portion sizes [2][3]. - To prevent further consumer misunderstanding, White Elephant Foods plans to adjust the packaging of the "Duoban" products [3]. Group 2: Market Position - Established in 1997, White Elephant Foods has built a strong reputation for its cost-effective products and commitment to national branding, earning the title of "National Goods Light" among consumers [5]. - According to the "2024 Henan Top 100 Private Enterprises" list, White Elephant Foods ranked 33rd with a revenue of 9.175 billion yuan in 2023, closely trailing behind its competitor, Uni-President, which reported 9.594 billion yuan in revenue [5]. - The handling of the trademark controversy is critical for White Elephant Foods, as mismanagement could impact its future growth and brand image, making it essential to regain consumer trust [5].

近日，有网友发视频质疑，白象方便面的宣传标语"多半袋面"中的"多半"实际上是商标，并非重量 多了半袋。 核心提示： 1、 白象方便面宣传的 " 多半 " 实为注册商标，并非指分量增加，引发消费者质疑。 2、 除了"多半"外，白象还有"多一半"系列商品，但在电商平台上，某款白象"多一半"方便面只比 正常面饼多 25% 。 3 、类似 " 商标擦边 " 案例频发（如千禾 "0" 酱油、简爱 " 其他没了 " 酸奶），商家利用描述性 词汇注册商标，混淆消费者认知。 万万没想到， 浓眉大眼的白象 方便面竟然也玩起了"擦边"。 近日，白象方便面因商标问题引发争议，其宣传标语"多半袋面"中的"多半"被曝仅为商标名称，而 非消费者理解的"分量更多"。 这一事件再次将"擦边商标"现象推向风口浪尖。此前千禾酱油陷入 " 千禾 0" 风波，广东壹号食品 推出 " 壹号土 " 猪肉 —— 消费者乍看会误以为是 " 土猪肉 " ；还有 " 山里来的土鸡蛋 " ，实则 " 山里来的土 " 是注册商标；简爱酸奶的 " 其他没了 " ，同样属于商标范畴。 此类现象在食品行业屡见不鲜，背后折射出企业过度逐利与消费者权益保护之间的深层矛盾。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company White Elephant Food has issued an apology regarding the trademark "Duoban" for its noodle products, clarifying that "Duoban" refers to larger portion sizes of their existing products and aims to distinguish them from regular sizes for consumer convenience [1][2]. Group 1 - The "Duoban" product line is based on the original 70g noodle cake, now offering larger portions of 110-120g [1]. - The trademark "Duoban" was registered to differentiate these larger products from standard portion sizes, facilitating consumer choice [1][2]. - The company acknowledges consumer confusion and plans to adjust the packaging of "Duoban" products to prevent misunderstandings in the future [1]. Group 2 - Official customer service confirmed that "Duoban" is indeed a registered trademark and that the actual weight of the products is indicated on the packaging [2]. - The company has received feedback regarding accusations of "playing word games" in their marketing and will relay this to the product suggestion department [2].

近日，多位网友反映称， 白象多半袋面、多半桶面系列产品包装上显示"多半"为注册商标 ， 并质疑企业"在宣传上玩文字游戏"，消息引发热议，登上热搜榜首。 相关画面显示，产品包装"多半袋面""多半桶面"旁边写着"大分量，倍满足"的标语，在生产信 息下方还有一句"'多半'是白象食品股份有限公司注册商标"。 包装盒标注："多半"是白象食品股份有限公司注册商标 据南方都市报报道，对此，白象食品官方客服人员表示，" '多半'确实是商标 ，产品具体克重 以包装上显示的为准，本身产品是没有问题的。" 该客服还回复，会将情况反馈给产品建议部 门。 媒体实探：确实比以前多 据《潇湘晨报》报道，将白象多半袋面的三款商品和对应的白象以前三款商品相比，"多半袋/ 桶面"在含量多了1/4到1/5的情况下，价格仅涨了1/4左右，红油爆椒口味甚至降价了。 商家们的"文字游戏" 据《中国消费者》报道，晨光乳业有限公司生产的"供港壹号"盒装牛奶实际并未供应香港，打 商标注册擦边球，存在误导消费者的嫌疑。 据21世纪经济报道此前消息，"壹号土猪"的"壹号土"为注册商标，"千禾零添加酱油"的"千禾 零"也是注册商标。（→ 回顾 ） 天眼查显示， 白 ...

Group 1 - The core issue highlighted is the misleading practices of companies using deceptive trademarks that confuse consumers about the quality and characteristics of their products, such as "一品牛肉干" being made of pork instead of beef and a "120W charger" actually having a power of 12W [1] - These deceptive trademarks, while registered, can damage the company's credibility and lead to consumer distrust, even if the company's advertising complies with legal standards [1] - The article emphasizes that trademarks should not be misleading and that registered trademarks can be declared invalid if they are found to be deceptive or cause public misunderstanding about product quality [1] Group 2 - Companies are encouraged to focus on long-term development by ensuring quality, service, and consumer rights, rather than seeking shortcuts [2] - Regulatory bodies are urged to update and refine trademark examination rules and to take timely action against problematic trademarks, as well as to improve the legal framework surrounding intellectual property [2] - There is a call for strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights and creating a safer consumer environment through comprehensive management systems [2]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing trademark dispute between Carlsberg's Chongqing Brewery and Chongqing Jiawei Brewery over the "Shancheng Beer" brand has intensified, with recent trademark registrations by Carlsberg indicating a strategic move to solidify its ownership and market position [1][3][5]. Group 1: Trademark Registration and Ownership - Carlsberg's Chongqing Brewery has recently obtained multiple trademark registrations for "Shancheng Beer" between May 6 and May 19, 2025, asserting its complete ownership of the brand [1]. - The trademark registrations include various designs and names associated with "Shancheng Beer," highlighting Carlsberg's commitment to securing its brand identity [4][5]. - Chongqing Jiawei claims that the agreement to use the "Shancheng" trademark was intended to provide them with permanent usage rights, which they argue is essential for their sustainable development [5]. Group 2: Legal Disputes and Market Dynamics - The legal battle between Chongqing Brewery and Chongqing Jiawei has been ongoing, stemming from Jiawei's role as a contract manufacturer for "Shancheng Beer" [1][2]. - Following a legal defeat, Chongqing Brewery emphasized that it has sufficient production capacity and criticized the partnership with Jiawei as detrimental to its interests [1][5]. - Chongqing Jiawei contends that the collaboration has significantly benefited Carlsberg and Chongqing Brewery, enhancing their market position and brand authority in the region [2]. Group 3: Future Implications - The recent trademark registrations by Carlsberg may lead to renewed conflicts with Chongqing Jiawei, as the latter's rights to the "Shancheng" brand are closely tied to the existing sales agreements, which are set to expire in January 2029 [5]. - The ongoing trademark battle and the associated legal disputes could have significant implications for both companies' market strategies and brand positioning in the competitive beer industry [5].