Group 1 - The article discusses the controversy surrounding the advertising claims of LaFang's "Little Gold Bar Hair Mask," which states that it can repair hair damage in just one minute, drawing comparisons to Pantene's "Three-Minute Miracle" claim [1] - Pantene faced criticism for its "Three-Minute Miracle" slogan, which was defended by the company as a registered trademark rather than a claim of efficacy, with supporting data from third-party testing [1] - The article highlights that this is not the first instance of well-known brands facing scrutiny over their marketing language, citing examples like Bai Xiang's "Half" series and Qian He Food's various trademarks [1] Group 2 - The article does not provide additional relevant content for this section.

Core Viewpoint - The trademark "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" has sparked significant public interest and controversy regarding its registration and marketing claims, highlighting potential issues with consumer perception and brand representation [1][2]. Trademark Registration - Procter & Gamble has successfully registered the trademark "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" along with "3 MINUTE MIRACLE" for personal care products, while other related trademarks like "分钟奇迹" and "3分钟奇迹" are currently invalid [2][3]. - The registered trademark "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" was applied for on August 9, 2019, and has a protection period from March 21, 2020, to March 20, 2030 [3]. Industry Context - The controversy surrounding the trademark is not isolated, as other companies have faced scrutiny for similar marketing practices, indicating a broader trend of potential misleading claims in branding within the consumer goods sector [5].

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].

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].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" trademark by White Elephant Food highlights the potential for consumer misunderstanding due to marketing strategies that may blur the lines of clarity and transparency [1][2][3] Group 1: Company Response and Consumer Perception - White Elephant Food confirmed that "Duoban" is a registered trademark and that the actual product weight is indicated on the packaging, asserting that there is no issue with the product itself [1] - The company stated that the "Duoban" products are larger versions of their standard offerings, aiming to differentiate them for consumer selection [1] - Despite the company's explanations and apologies, the actual increase in product weight (25 grams) did not meet consumer expectations of "more than half," leading to claims of misleading marketing [1][2] Group 2: Marketing Strategy and Consumer Rights - The use of the term "Duoban" has historical context, as White Elephant previously promoted a "Duoban" product with a clear increase in quantity, which may have reinforced consumer expectations [2] - The article emphasizes that marketing strategies should not obscure information, as this can lead to consumer trust issues, especially for a leading company in the industry [2][3] - Consumer rights laws in China mandate that businesses provide truthful and comprehensive product information, raising questions about the appropriateness of the trademark's usage [2] Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - Suggestions for improving packaging design include using equal font sizes for trademark explanations and product names or adding clearer definitions to avoid consumer confusion [3] - The article advocates for enhanced semantic review mechanisms in trademark registration to prevent public misunderstanding when everyday terms are used as trademarks [3] - It stresses the importance of maintaining transparency in marketing practices to protect brand value and consumer trust in the long run [3]

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].

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].

Core Viewpoint - The newly opened retail store "胖都来" in Haining, Zhejiang, is facing controversy due to its name being similar to the well-known retail company "胖东来," leading to legal actions and public scrutiny [1][3]. Group 1: Company Background - "胖都来" officially opened on May 1, featuring a grand opening event with celebrity endorsements, including videos from actors and hosts [3]. - The store primarily sells clothing and is part of a larger retail complex that includes "艺博乐淘城," which sells kitchenware and furniture [4]. Group 2: Trademark and Legal Issues - The founder of "胖都来," 都建明, stated that the name could be changed and mentioned that the trademark application was accepted by the National Trademark Office [3]. - "胖东来" has issued a lawyer's letter to "胖都来" and is actively pursuing legal action, having submitted a complaint to the market supervision administration [3][4]. - As of May 6, promotional materials featuring celebrities were removed from the "胖都来" store, and its social media accounts have become less accessible [4]. Group 3: Trademark Registration Status - The Zhejiang胖都来商业管理有限公司, a shareholder of "胖都来," applied for 18 trademarks related to "胖都来" and "淘都来" on January 22, which are currently under substantive examination [4].

Core Viewpoint - The actor Zhao Liang's brand "San De Zi" is under scrutiny for misleading consumers regarding its product "De Zi Tu Ji" (土鸡), as the trademark registered is "De Zi Tu" (德子土), which may confuse customers about the product's authenticity [1][2][3]. Trademark and Consumer Misleading - The company Chengdu San De Zi Hao Zhen Xuan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. has registered multiple trademarks including "San De Zi" and "De Zi Tu," with the latter successfully registered on January 21, 2024, covering categories such as meat and poultry [2][3]. - Consumers have raised concerns that the branding and product descriptions on e-commerce platforms have omitted the term "Tu Ji" (土鸡), instead using terms like "Shaonian Gong Ji" (少年公鸡) and "Zhuang Nian Mu Ji" (壮年母鸡) [2][3]. Company Response and Practices - The company claims that "De Zi Tu" was a defensive registration and that the main trademark has always been "San De Zi." They have begun changing packaging to remove the "De Zi Tu" branding since early April 2024 [3][4]. - The company asserts that their chickens are raised in a free-range environment and are fed grains, although there is no standardized definition for "Tu Ji" [3][4]. Previous Violations - The company has a history of violations, including a fine for false advertising related to food labeling, where they used misleading terms like "Mountain Free-Range Gu Shi Ji" (山地散养固始鸡) [4]. - This incident is not the first controversy for Zhao Liang, who faced backlash for his association with a store name similar to a well-known retail brand, leading to an apology and clarification of his non-commercial involvement [5]. Market Presence - The "San De Zi" official flagship store has gained significant traction, boasting over 1.1 million followers and sales of 605,000 units [5].