名为酸奶实际上是"小甜水"乳饮料，"可生食鸡蛋"客服却不建议生食，"虫草蛋"只是饲料有虫有草， 某"骆驼奶片"驼乳粉含量仅有2%，看着像"东方树叶"然而是"东方爽茶"，"多半""壹号土"都是注册商 标…… 2025年以来，新京报推出多期《消费质量报告》专题及调查报道。新京报记者调查发现，包装成新概念 或其他品类、注册"擦边"商标用于产品名称、突出宣传概念性添加成分、"傍名牌""搭便车"，均已成为 食品名称混淆视听的营销噱头。 包装成新概念或其他品类实施误导 伴随人们对健康的关注度越来越高，一些食品商家通过创造或利用看似高端、健康的词汇来命名产品。 然而部分"新概念"实为营销噱头，经不起推敲。还有产品名称与实际类别严重不符，仅通过名称误导消 费者。 "可生食鸡蛋"是近年来的市场宠儿，然而新京报记者调查发现，"可生食鸡蛋"普遍宣称的"无菌"，多仅 强调"无沙门氏菌"，对其他致病菌检出标准不一。针对一款"德青源金牌宝宝可生食鲜鸡蛋"的可生食 性，店铺客服甚至给出"不建议生食"的回答。而永辉农场可生食鲜鸡蛋的包装上，也标注着"建议老年 人、孕妇、婴幼儿、肠道不耐受以及免疫功能较弱人群，应充分加热后食用"。随机调查的3 ...

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding White Elephant instant noodles stems from the misleading use of the trademark "Duoban" (meaning "more than half"), which consumers interpreted as indicating a larger quantity, rather than a brand name [1][2][3]. Group 1: Trademark Issues - The term "Duoban" is confirmed to be a registered trademark of White Elephant, not an indication of increased product weight [4][5]. - White Elephant's other trademark applications, such as "Duoban" bags and buckets, have been rejected and are currently invalid [5][6]. - The "Duoyiban" (meaning "more than half") product only offers a 25% increase in noodle quantity compared to standard products, raising further consumer concerns [2][7]. Group 2: Industry Trends - The phenomenon of "trademark edge cases" is prevalent in the food industry, where companies exploit descriptive terms to mislead consumers [2][11][13]. - This practice reflects a deeper conflict between corporate profit motives and consumer rights protection, as companies prioritize market share over transparency [3][14]. Group 3: Consumer Reactions - Following the revelation about the "Duoban" trademark, public backlash against White Elephant has intensified, with consumers expressing disappointment and distrust [16][18]. - The incident highlights the gap between consumer expectations for brand integrity and the reality of misleading marketing practices [18]. Group 4: Company Background - White Elephant Food Co., established in 1997, focuses on producing high-quality noodle products and has expanded its operations across multiple provinces in China [10]. - The company has completed a B+ funding round, attracting investments from notable firms like Fosun Group and GF Securities [10]. Group 5: Regulatory Context - The use of misleading trademarks contradicts the principles outlined in the Trademark Law, which mandates honesty and transparency in marketing [14][15]. - The National Food Safety Standards require that food labeling be truthful and objective, further emphasizing the need for compliance in marketing practices [14].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Shenzhen Chenguang Dairy's "Gonggang Yihua" milk highlights the issue of misleading marketing practices related to trademark registration, as the product is not actually supplied to Hong Kong despite its branding suggesting otherwise [2][3]. Group 1: Company Overview - Shenzhen Chenguang Dairy has over 40 years of history and has been recognized as the "largest fresh milk exporter" in China [2]. - The company has made multiple attempts to register trademarks related to "Gonggang," with only "Gonggang Yihua" successfully registered, while others were rejected [3]. Group 2: Trademark Issues - The term "Gonggang" is often associated with higher quality products, leading to potential consumer deception when companies use it without actual supply to Hong Kong [2][3]. - A total of 123 trademarks related to "Gonggang" have been found, but most applications have been rejected, indicating a trend of companies attempting to exploit trademark regulations [3]. Group 3: Regulatory Implications - The incident underscores the need for stricter verification of product claims during trademark registration and marketing to protect consumer rights [4]. - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to enhance trademark examination and consumer protection mechanisms to identify and address misleading marketing practices [4][5]. Group 4: Market Trends - There is a growing intolerance in the market for misleading marketing practices, as consumer awareness and rights protection improve [5]. - Companies are urged to adopt honest marketing strategies and avoid deceptive practices to maintain consumer trust and ensure long-term success [5].

Core Viewpoint - Shenzhen Chengguang Dairy Co., Ltd. has been accused of misleading consumers by marketing its "Gonggang No. 1" milk as a product supplied to Hong Kong, despite it not being available in that market [1][5]. Trademark Registration - Chengguang Dairy has applied for multiple "Gonggang" related trademarks since 2014, with 33 records of applications, but most have been rejected, leaving only "Gonggang No. 1" successfully registered [1][6]. - The registered "Gonggang No. 1" trademark covers various dairy products and is valid from February 7, 2018, to February 6, 2028 [3][5]. Market Presence - Chengguang Dairy claims to have a sales network covering Guangdong Province and extending to regions like Zhejiang, Fujian, and Hunan, with historical supply to Hong Kong [5]. - Despite the branding, customer service representatives have confirmed that "Gonggang No. 1" does not actually supply the Hong Kong market [5]. Industry Context - The term "Gonggang" is often associated with higher quality products, leading many companies to attempt to leverage this perception through trademark registrations, although many applications are rejected [6][8]. - Other companies, such as Wens Foodstuffs, have also faced challenges in registering "Gonggang" related trademarks, indicating a broader trend of companies attempting to capitalize on this branding [6][8].