Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding "clever trademarks" in the food industry, particularly focusing on the case of White Elephant Food's "Duoban" trademark, which misleads consumers regarding product weight and content [2][10][12]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - White Elephant Food's "Duoban" trademark is criticized for misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing a larger quantity of noodles than what is actually provided [3][14]. - The term "Duoban" is a registered trademark rather than an actual weight measurement, leading to public outrage and perceptions of deception [4][7]. - The phenomenon of "clever trademarks" is not isolated, with other examples including "Yipin Beef Jerky" and "Qianhe 0" soy sauce, which also mislead consumers through similar tactics [8][26]. Group 2: Misleading Marketing Practices - The essence of "clever trademarks" lies in exploiting information asymmetry to mislead consumer perceptions [12][13]. - Companies often use visual marketing strategies that create misconceptions about product quantity or quality, as seen with the "Duoban" noodles and "Gongang" milk [15][16]. - The use of split terminology in trademarks can create positive associations in consumers' minds, further complicating the issue of misleading branding [20][21]. Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Framework - The registration of misleading trademarks often occurs because the trademark examination process does not identify them as deceptive at the time of application [39][40]. - The article highlights the challenges in trademark regulation, noting that existing laws may not adequately prevent the registration of misleading trademarks [31][38]. - Legal remedies exist for consumers misled by such trademarks, including the possibility of punitive damages and collective lawsuits [59][60]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - The article suggests that stricter regulations and standards should be established to prevent the misuse of terms like "zero additives" and "natural" in marketing [71][72]. - Companies are encouraged to prioritize integrity and transparency in their branding practices to build consumer trust [76][78]. - Enhanced consumer education is recommended to help the public critically assess product labels and marketing claims rather than relying solely on trademarks [79].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the sale of "Dezi Tuji" (德子土鸡) by actor Zhao Liang, where the brand name "Dezi Tu" (德子土) is a registered trademark, has raised questions about misleading marketing practices in e-commerce [1][8]. Trademark Registration - Chengdu San Dezi Hao Zhen Xuan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. applied for the "Dezi Tu" trademark in July 2023, classified under international category 29, which includes meat and poultry products [6][7]. - The company has also applied for additional trademarks such as "Dezi Tuji," "Dezi Tuzhu," and "Dezi Tuyan," all under the same international classification, with their status currently pending substantive examination [6][7]. Marketing Practices - Zhao Liang clarified that the use of "Dezi Tu" and "Dezi Tuji" trademarks is to prevent malicious registration and emphasized that the brand sold is "San Dezi" (三德子), claiming the chickens are authentic free-range chickens [8]. - The product descriptions in the online store have been altered from "free-range native chicken" to "free-range ecological chicken," indicating a response to the controversy [8]. Legal Implications - Legal expert Zhao Zhanling pointed out that the marketing of "Dezi Tuji" could mislead consumers into thinking "native chicken" is a core selling point, which may violate consumer protection laws [11]. - If the chickens sold do not meet the standards for native chickens, it could constitute false advertising, and the trademark "Dezi Tu" could be challenged for being misleading [11][12]. Consumer Rights - Consumers have the right to be informed and to choose based on accurate product representations, as highlighted by the concerns over "heartfelt trademarks" that may mislead consumers [12][14]. - The recent "Special Action Plan to Boost Consumption" emphasizes the importance of creating a trustworthy consumption environment [13].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the prevalence of misleading trademarks, referred to as "heartfelt trademarks," which often confuse consumers and can lead to unintentional purchases due to their deceptive nature [1][2]. Group 1: Characteristics of "Heartfelt Trademarks" - "Heartfelt trademarks" often feature confusing and misleading phrases that do not accurately represent the product's characteristics, such as "mountain soil eggs" or "only water, salt, and flour" [1][2]. - These trademarks are designed to be highly deceptive at first glance, making it difficult for consumers to discern their true meaning until they are closely examined [2][3]. Group 2: Consumer Awareness and Misunderstanding - Many consumers fall victim to these trademarks due to a lack of awareness and the inability to recognize the potential for such misleading branding [2]. - The article highlights that even professional trademark examiners may overlook the risks associated with these unusual trademarks, as their assessments are often based solely on textual materials without considering the actual products [2][3]. Group 3: Regulatory Suggestions - To mitigate the risks posed by these trademarks, it is suggested that regulatory bodies require applicants to provide additional materials clarifying the specific products associated with unusual trademarks [3]. - This approach could help eliminate confusion and prevent deceptive marketing practices by ensuring that trademarks are clearly linked to their respective products [3].