Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of misleading trademarks in the market, where businesses use clever wording to create false perceptions about product quality, leading to consumer deception [1][2][3]. Trademark Misleading Practices - Businesses are utilizing psychological expectations of consumers by designing trademarks that create information gaps, such as "mountain-raised soil" eggs, which imply organic quality but may not deliver [1]. - The practice of splitting misleading phrases into separate trademarks, like "One Number Soil" and "Pork," makes it harder for consumers to identify potential deception [2]. Legal and Regulatory Framework - China's trademark law prohibits deceptive trademarks that mislead the public about product quality or origin, aiming to ensure fair competition [2]. - The subjective nature of trademark examination leads to inconsistencies in judging what constitutes misleading trademarks, necessitating clearer guidelines and standards [2]. Recommendations for Improvement - To prevent misleading trademarks, there is a need for continuous optimization of trademark examination criteria, including clear guidelines for ambiguous terms [2]. - The evaluation process should incorporate the actual market presentation of trademarks, simulating real usage scenarios to predict potential consumer deception [2]. Post-Registration Monitoring - Strengthening post-registration regulatory mechanisms is crucial, requiring applicants to clarify the usage and promotional paths of descriptive trademarks [3]. - Dynamic inspections of registered trademarks should be implemented to correct and penalize misleading practices promptly [3]. Market Sentiment and Business Responsibility - The increasing public intolerance towards deceptive marketing practices indicates a shift in consumer expectations, emphasizing the need for businesses to prioritize genuine quality over clever marketing tricks [3].

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 article discusses the controversy surrounding certain food products that use misleading branding and labeling, leading to consumer backlash and questions about the legality and ethics of such practices [1][2][3] Group 1: Misleading Branding - Several food products, such as "壹号土猪肉" and "千禾0酱油," have been criticized for using ambiguous terms that mislead consumers about their true nature [1] - The recent case of "多半袋面" and "多半桶面" highlights how consumers felt deceived when they discovered that the products did not contain the expected quantity [1] - Companies involved, like 壹号食品 and 白象集团, defended their practices by stating that they do not deceive consumers and that their products meet certain standards [1][2] Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Aspects - Experts indicate that the registration of such trademarks may not have been thoroughly scrutinized, as the concept of "土" (earthy) has gained popularity over time [2] - The legality of using these trademarks depends on the context and manner of their use, and even registered trademarks can be declared invalid if they violate legal standards [2] - The article emphasizes that companies must be cautious, as consumer protection laws can lead to penalties if products do not align with consumer expectations [2] Group 3: Consumer Trust and Perception - Consumer trust is crucial, as brands serve as a quick reference for product quality and origin; misleading branding can erode this trust [3] - When brands deviate from consumer understanding, they risk criticism and damage to their reputation, questioning the value of their branding strategies [3] - The article uses a humorous analogy to illustrate the absurdity of misleading branding, suggesting that companies should avoid becoming a joke in the eyes of consumers [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding Qianhe Weiye's "Qianhe 0" soy sauce products, particularly in relation to the "zero additives" claim and the detection of cadmium in some products, emphasizing the company's commitment to transparency and product safety [3][4][6][8]. Group 1: Product and Brand Clarification - "Qianhe 0" is a registered trademark of Qianhe Weiye, indicating products that are free from additives, and the company asserts that all products under this brand are indeed zero-additive [4][14]. - The company acknowledges a communication gap regarding the meaning of "Qianhe 0" and aims to clarify that it is both a brand and a guarantee of zero additives [14][15]. Group 2: Response to Controversy - Following media reports of cadmium detection in soy sauce products, Qianhe Weiye initiated a self-inspection of its products and confirmed that the "Qianhe 0" series complies with production standards and does not contain additives [7][11]. - The company highlighted that the detected cadmium levels were within acceptable limits and attributed the presence of cadmium to raw materials rather than intentional additives [9][10]. Group 3: Regulatory Compliance and Safety Standards - Qianhe Weiye stated that its products meet national safety standards, with cadmium levels in their soy sauce being significantly lower than the limits set by both Chinese and EU regulations [11][12]. - The company emphasized that the cadmium levels found in their products are below the daily intake limits recommended by health organizations [11]. Group 4: Future Actions and Consumer Engagement - Qianhe Weiye plans to enhance consumer trust by inviting more customers to observe the production process, thereby promoting transparency and product safety [16][17]. - The company is committed to maintaining high production standards and has implemented advanced technology in its manufacturing processes to ensure product quality [17].