每经编辑｜何小桃 11月8日，要潮人民咖啡馆发布声明，内容如下： 老式的搪瓷缸，提袋上印着的五角星......近日，一家以"用咖啡讲述中国故事"为特色的咖啡馆火了。 记者搜索发现，全国多地出现了以"人民咖啡馆"为店标、且装修高度相似的店家，已经成为社交平台的打卡新地标。 有网友表示，"人民"一词具有强烈的公共属性和政治内涵，这样被用于商业咖啡馆的标识，令人感到突兀和不适。其店标因使用"人民"字样，法律合规性 也遭到质疑。 天眼查显示，"人民咖啡馆"连锁店属于要潮（上海）文化传播有限公司，该公司成立于2020年。此前，该公司多次申请注册"人民咖啡馆"商标均未成功。 目前，在该公司注册的餐饮类商标中，仅"要潮人民咖啡馆""潮人民咖啡馆"两个商标显示已注册。 | | | 11月7日，人民网评发表评论文章《"人民咖啡馆"，不妥！》，该评论中提及： 此前该公司申请的"人民咖啡馆"商标还在审查阶段 记者注意到，"人民咖啡馆"的认证账号显示，该品牌已拥有27家线下门店，分别分布于上海、北京、重庆、天津、哈尔滨、南昌、长春等城市。在该账号 发布的门店宣传视频中，多家门店均以"人民咖啡馆"和五角星作为店名和门头，并未在显眼处看 ...

近日，娃哈哈内部风云变幻，自2026销售年度起将启用新品牌"娃小宗"，而宗馥莉也于日前辞去娃哈哈集团相关职务。 这场变革背后，是商标合规、改革阻力、家族内斗等多重因素交织的复杂局面。 然而，"娃小宗"作为一个新品牌也会面临诸多挑战，比如渠道商如何增加毛利润。 品牌转型并非易事，需在法律合规、市场接受、情感认同等多重维度找到最优解。宗馥莉要平衡娃哈哈传统基因与当代 消费者需求，她的探索关乎"娃小宗"品牌的未来。"娃小宗"能否撑起一片天，仍有待时间检验。 （图片来源于网络） 据媒体披露，宗馥莉辞职，与商标使用"不合规"密切相关。娃哈哈股权结构呈三方制衡格局，国资、宗馥莉个人、职工 持股会分别持股。在此架构下，"娃哈哈"商标使用需全体股东一致同意。宗馥莉将娃哈哈资源转移至宏胜集团销售产品 却未支付商标使用费，触及国资权益，387件核心商标转移申请遭紧急叫停，这成为她辞职的导火索。 除了内部改革阻力，宗馥莉还深陷家族内部矛盾。今年二、三季度，宗庆后与杜建英所生的三名子女和宗馥莉，就21亿 美元离岸信托归属爆发矛盾。香港高等法院裁定冻结该资产，驳回宗馥莉方上诉，维持冻结令。此外，"非婚生"成员还 要求分割娃哈哈集团29 ...

Core Viewpoint - The increasing use of specific words or numbers as trademarks in the food industry raises concerns about the clarity and accuracy of product information conveyed to consumers, as exemplified by the "Duoban" (多半) trademark used by White Elephant Foods, which has led to public debate regarding its implications on product weight perception [1][2][3] Group 1: Trademark Usage and Consumer Perception - The "Duoban" trademark is registered and does not directly describe the product's weight, yet consumers interpret it as indicating a significant increase in quantity, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction [1][2] - White Elephant Foods' "Duoban" products are marketed as larger portions, but the actual weight increase is only about 25 grams compared to standard products, which does not align with consumer expectations of "more than half" [3][4] - The trademark's registration may have been facilitated by extensive marketing efforts, which have established a strong association between the term and the brand, despite its misleading implications [4][5] Group 2: Industry Implications and Regulatory Concerns - The incident highlights a broader issue in the food industry where packaging and branding often mislead consumers, leading to a loss of trust in brands and the industry as a whole [6][10] - There is a call for stricter regulations and standards regarding the use of trademarks that may mislead consumers about product attributes, emphasizing the need for clarity and accuracy in marketing [12][13] - The reliance on misleading marketing tactics can harm long-term brand loyalty and market stability, as consumers may avoid brands that they perceive as deceptive [14][15]