Core Viewpoint - The recent incident involving Antarctic krill oil with zero phospholipid content has tarnished the reputation of the "Tong Ren Tang" brand, highlighting ongoing issues with brand and trademark management within the Tong Ren Tang Group [1][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The Antarctic krill oil in question was produced by Anhui Habao Pharmaceutical and distributed by Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical, which is not a subsidiary of the publicly listed Tong Ren Tang [3]. - The product used the "Tong Ren Tang" trademark, which is owned by the Tong Ren Tang Group, leading to public confusion and backlash against the listed company [3][4]. - The company clarified that it does not hold any equity or investment rights in the implicated Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical [3]. Group 2: Brand Management Issues - The incident underscores the chaotic brand authorization within the Tong Ren Tang Group, which could lead to further issues if not addressed [5]. - The krill oil product prominently featured the "Beijing Tong Ren Tang" label, raising concerns about brand misuse and the similarity to the "Tong Ren Tang" double-dragon trademark [5][6]. - The Tong Ren Tang Group controls over 500 enterprises and has a complex business structure, which complicates product quality and brand management [6]. Group 3: Historical Context - Tong Ren Tang was founded in 1669 and has a long history of serving the imperial court, which has contributed to its prestigious reputation [7]. - The brand has faced legal challenges in the past, including a notable trademark infringement case with Tianjin Tong Ren Tang, which has led to ongoing litigation and eventual acquisition plans [9][10]. - Multiple entities using the "Tong Ren Tang" name across different regions complicate brand management and increase the risk of brand dilution [12].