1993年起，来自新加坡的仁某置地集团在中国上海、南京、成都等地落子，陆续成立三家公司，凭 借"仁某滨江园""仁某广场"等高端项目迅速打响品牌。 远在西北地区，另一家"仁某公司"悄然成立。2004年起，一批高档住宅楼陆续落地甘肃省兰州 市，"国际""晶城"等楼盘名称前，均冠有"仁某"字样。但喜提新房的业主们浑然不觉，自己的舒适港湾 正陷入一场商标侵权和不正当竞争风波。 此"仁某" 非彼"仁某" 2015年，花旗银行、德意志银行致函仁某置地（成都）有限公司，提出参观访问其在兰州的"仁某 美林郡"项目。 从未在兰州布局，何来楼盘项目？"乌龙"事件让一家名为"兰州仁某房地产有限公司"的企业，进入 成都仁某公司的视野。后经调查发现，这家兰州的"仁某公司"，早已在当地开发了"仁某国际""仁某美 林郡""仁某晶城"等楼盘，2002年至2016年累计获利超4亿元。 2016年3月，成都仁某公司申请注册成立"兰州仁某置地有限公司"，但因兰州仁某公司的企业名称 注册行为，市场监督管理部门以"字号重名"为由未予核准。成都仁某公司未能顺利在兰州地区设立关联 公司、拓展"仁某"品牌的市场空间。 2016年5月，成都仁某公司以及上海仁 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company "胖东来" has initiated legal action against a social media influencer for defamation related to claims about a product quality issue, specifically concerning red underwear that allegedly caused allergic reactions. The company is seeking damages of no less than 1 million yuan [1][3][8]. Group 1: Legal Actions - The lawsuit against the influencer, known as "两个小段," is based on claims that the influencer's video on Douyin (TikTok) led to significant negative publicity and customer complaints for the company [1][3]. - The company has reported a total of 7 ongoing lawsuits and 9 additional cases it plans to pursue, indicating a broader strategy to protect its brand reputation [2][3]. - The company is pursuing damages of at least 1 million yuan for the defamation case, reflecting the seriousness with which it views the impact of the influencer's statements [1][8]. Group 2: Company Response and Investigation - Following the initial claims, the company established a special investigation team and temporarily removed the affected product from shelves, demonstrating a proactive approach to customer concerns [6]. - A detailed investigation report was released, confirming that the product in question met quality standards, but the company acknowledged failures in handling customer complaints and has taken disciplinary actions against staff involved [6][7]. - The company has committed to compensating affected customers and has implemented measures to improve its complaint handling processes [6][8]. Group 3: Public and Media Reaction - The incident has sparked significant public interest and debate, with the founder of the company emphasizing the need for rational discourse and accountability in public statements [11]. - The influencer involved has since issued a statement denying malicious intent and expressing regret for the emotional nature of their comments, indicating a recognition of the incident's broader implications [13][14]. - The situation has led to a ripple effect, with other retailers reportedly removing the brand's products from their shelves, further complicating the company's market position [7][8].