商标擦边

Search documents
日化巨头迷恋“文字游戏”:360°非环绕、3D也非技术、贵族棉更非面料…… | BUG
新浪财经· 2025-07-17 00:54
Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the phenomenon of "trademark edge" marketing strategies in various industries, particularly in personal care and food sectors, raising concerns about consumer rights and fair competition [2][7]. Group 1: Trademark Issues - The "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" conditioner has come under scrutiny for its trademark usage, with small print indicating that the trademark does not imply product efficacy [5]. - Similar marketing tactics are observed in other brands, such as "Tide All-in-1 360°" and "Crest 3D White," where the terms used are more about branding than actual product technology [3][5]. - The use of everyday terms as trademarks creates a misleading impression of product quality or effectiveness, leading to consumer confusion [5][6]. Group 2: Legal Perspectives - Legal experts note that the distinction between trademark edge and reasonable borrowing is often unclear and must be determined on a case-by-case basis [9][10]. - Misleading trademarks can harm consumer rights and disrupt fair market competition, as seen in various public controversies involving well-known brands [7][8]. - The legal framework surrounding deceptive trademarks is complex, with challenges in proving consumer harm and establishing causation between trademark use and consumer loss [11]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Challenges - Consumers face significant difficulties in protecting their rights against misleading trademarks, often requiring legal action or complaints to regulatory bodies [10][11]. - The ambiguity in legal standards for trademark edge behavior complicates consumer claims, making it hard to demonstrate losses related to deceptive marketing [11]. - Brands that rely on misleading language rather than product quality risk losing consumer trust in the long run [11].
晨光乳业被指商标擦边:“供港壹号”到底供不供港?
Xin Lang Cai Jing· 2025-05-19 10:25
Core Viewpoint - The "Gonggang No.1 Milk" product from Shenzhen Morning Light Dairy is facing consumer skepticism regarding its claim of being supplied to Hong Kong, with many questioning whether the branding is misleading rather than indicative of actual supply to the region [1][3][9]. Group 1: Product and Branding - "Gonggang No.1 Milk" is available in two packaging types: one with a TM mark indicating a trademark application and another registered trademark version [1]. - The brand claims to have a historical supply of milk to Hong Kong dating back to the 1970s, but current availability in major Hong Kong supermarkets is unverified [3][4]. - The product was launched in 2017 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China, with marketing emphasizing its quality and historical ties to Hong Kong [4]. Group 2: Trademark and Legal Issues - The trademark "Gonggang" has been registered, but there are concerns about its potential to mislead consumers regarding actual supply to Hong Kong [9][10]. - Legal disputes have arisen over the use of the term "Gonggang," with previous cases highlighting the challenges of trademarking terms that imply geographic origin [10][11]. - The company has faced scrutiny for potentially misleading advertising practices, which could lead to administrative penalties if found in violation of advertising laws [12]. Group 3: Consumer Perception and Market Impact - Consumers often associate "Gonggang" products with higher quality due to differing standards between Hong Kong and mainland China, leading to heightened expectations [7]. - The controversy surrounding "Gonggang No.1 Milk" is part of a broader trend of consumer dissatisfaction with brands that may use misleading marketing strategies, similar to other recent cases [13]. - Regulatory bodies are beginning to address these issues, indicating a potential shift in policy to prevent misleading branding practices in the food industry [13].
汇源“被收购”卡壳 牵出商标擦边风波
Nan Fang Du Shi Bao· 2025-05-15 23:17
Core Viewpoint - Huayuan Juice has issued a statement denying negative rumors about its financial status and future prospects, asserting that these claims are false and malicious, aimed at damaging the reputation of the brand and private enterprises in China [2][7]. Company Overview - Huayuan Juice was established in 1992 and became a well-known brand in China, achieving significant growth with a market share of 42% and annual sales of 2.4 billion yuan in 2008 [2][5]. - The company faced financial difficulties post-IPO, with a debt of 11.4 billion yuan in 2017 against assets of only 4.5 billion yuan, leading to its delisting from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2021 and subsequent bankruptcy restructuring [4][5]. Recent Developments - In July 2022, Huayuan Juice's restructuring plan was approved, with investment from Wensheng Assets amounting to 1.6 billion yuan, aimed at upgrading production and operations [5]. - In July 2023, Guozhong Water announced plans to acquire Huayuan Juice, which generated renewed market interest, but the acquisition was later terminated due to regulatory issues regarding the transfer of shares [6][7]. Brand Reputation and Market Position - Huayuan Juice claims to hold the position of "No. 1 in national sales of 100% juice," supported by third-party certification, despite facing criticism regarding its branding practices [7][8]. - The company has registered multiple trademarks, including "Huayuan 100%" and "Huayuan NFC," which have raised concerns about potential consumer deception due to their similarity to product names [8][9]. Industry Context - The NFC juice segment is gaining popularity among consumers for its fresh and preservative-free qualities, although there are concerns about misleading products in the market [10][11]. - The use of similar trademarks by leading brands like Huayuan raises questions about industry standards and consumer protection, as misleading branding can lead to consumer confusion and potential legal repercussions [9][10].