2025.07. 14 7月14日，"潘婷三分钟奇迹是商标"冲上微博热搜，引发广泛关注。 | 热搜 | 社会 上海 | 科技 | 文娱 | 生活 | 体育 | ACG | 更多 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | 热搜雷达,发现你关心的热点 | | | | | | | | 7 | 儿子去世后母亲客厅停尸5个月 14:55登顶 | | | | | য়ান | | | 2 | 宗馥莉被同父异母弟妹起诉 44878 | | | | | | | | 3 | Oakley 王楚钦 好友正在看 | | | | | 新 | | | 4 | 大连工业大学 44851 | | | | | | | | 5 | 下班回家发现屋里全是小偷 299893 | | | | | 遇 | | | 6 | 暑假上海酒店预订最想了 上逗 | | | | | 0 | | | 7 | 潘婷三分钟奇迹是商标 318680 | | | | | | | | | 一中出量 一度的 | | | | | 图 | | | 9 | 柴鸡蛋 12:31登顶 | | | | | 场 | | ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the misleading use of trademarks by companies, which often leads to consumer confusion and potential exploitation of their purchasing decisions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Misleading Trademarks - Companies are using trademarks that create confusion, such as "一品牛肉干" which is actually a pork product, misleading consumers into thinking they are purchasing beef [1]. - Examples include "小尾花黑猪肝" which misleads consumers into believing they are buying a premium product when it is just regular pork liver [2]. - The use of descriptive terms in trademarks, like "六个核桃" or "手打"挂面, does not guarantee the product's quality or characteristics, leading to consumer misconceptions [3]. Group 2: Regulatory Issues - The article highlights that many misleading trademarks have passed regulatory scrutiny, indicating potential flaws in the trademark examination process [5][9]. - The distinction between registered and unregistered trademarks is emphasized, with unregistered trademarks being easier to misuse without oversight [4]. - There is a call for improved regulatory frameworks to prevent misleading trademarks from being registered and used in the market [10][11]. Group 3: Consumer Impact - Consumers often find it difficult to seek redress when misled by trademarks, as the burden of proof lies heavily on them [8][10]. - The article notes that misleading trademarks not only harm consumers but also disrupt fair market competition, potentially driving honest businesses out of the market [8]. - There are instances where consumers have paid significantly more for products due to misleading branding, such as "壹号土" black pork ribs priced much higher than regular options [7]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - The article suggests that a multi-faceted approach is needed to address the issue, including better regulatory practices and consumer education [10][11]. - It advocates for a collaborative effort among regulatory bodies, industry associations, and consumers to create a more transparent and fair market environment [11]. - The establishment of a credit commitment system for trademark registration is proposed to penalize those who obtain trademarks through deceptive means [11].

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 company Bai Xiang has apologized for the misleading use of the trademark "Duo Ban," which was intended to differentiate its products but led to consumer confusion [1][2]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - Bai Xiang's "Duo Ban" trademark was criticized for playing with words, prompting an apology and a commitment to adjust product packaging to avoid consumer misunderstanding [1]. - The company's initial response was dismissive, asserting that the product's weight was clearly indicated on the packaging, reflecting a level of confidence in their marketing strategy [1][2]. - Similar trademark controversies have been noted in the industry, with examples including "Shan Li Lai De Tu" and "0 Sugar" claims, indicating a trend of misleading branding practices [1][2]. Group 2: Regulatory Environment - The registration of misleading trademarks often exploits loopholes in trademark law, as many terms do not directly violate prohibitive regulations, allowing for creative interpretations [2]. - The trademark law includes provisions against deceptive and misleading trademarks, but enforcement is often lax, leading to the registration of potentially misleading brands [2]. - The case of Bai Xiang highlights the ethical implications of such practices, emphasizing the importance of honesty in business to avoid significant financial repercussions, as seen in other companies facing backlash [2]. Group 3: Consumer Sentiment and Regulatory Recommendations - Consumers are generally not opposed to creative trademarks but are against deceptive practices, suggesting that transparency could enhance brand acceptance [3]. - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to expand the list of prohibited terms to better protect consumers from misleading claims [3].

近日，多位网友反映称， 白象多半袋面、多半桶面系列产品包装上显示"多半"为注册商标 ， 并质疑企业"在宣传上玩文字游戏"，消息引发热议，登上热搜榜首。 相关画面显示，产品包装"多半袋面""多半桶面"旁边写着"大分量，倍满足"的标语，在生产信 息下方还有一句"'多半'是白象食品股份有限公司注册商标"。 包装盒标注："多半"是白象食品股份有限公司注册商标 据南方都市报报道，对此，白象食品官方客服人员表示，" '多半'确实是商标 ，产品具体克重 以包装上显示的为准，本身产品是没有问题的。" 该客服还回复，会将情况反馈给产品建议部 门。 媒体实探：确实比以前多 据《潇湘晨报》报道，将白象多半袋面的三款商品和对应的白象以前三款商品相比，"多半袋/ 桶面"在含量多了1/4到1/5的情况下，价格仅涨了1/4左右，红油爆椒口味甚至降价了。 商家们的"文字游戏" 据《中国消费者》报道，晨光乳业有限公司生产的"供港壹号"盒装牛奶实际并未供应香港，打 商标注册擦边球，存在误导消费者的嫌疑。 据21世纪经济报道此前消息，"壹号土猪"的"壹号土"为注册商标，"千禾零添加酱油"的"千禾 零"也是注册商标。（→ 回顾 ） 天眼查显示， 白 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the deceptive practices of businesses using misleading trademarks that confuse consumers and undermine fair trade principles [1][2][3] Group 1: Misleading Trademarks - Businesses are registering descriptive terms as trademarks and combining them with product names, creating confusion for consumers [2] - These "clever trademarks" exploit information asymmetry, leading to consumer deception and violation of consumer rights [2] - The use of misleading trademarks disrupts market order and creates an environment where dishonest practices thrive, pushing out honest competitors [2] Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - The article emphasizes the need for stricter regulations to prevent the registration of deceptive trademarks that mislead the public about product quality or origin [3] - It suggests that trademark examination should extend to actual usage scenarios, requiring applicants to submit packaging designs for review [3] - There is a call for a reward mechanism for reporting trademark infringements to encourage consumer participation in monitoring [3] Group 3: Ethical Business Practices - Trademarks should serve as a promise of quality rather than a tool for deception [3] - Businesses are urged to operate with integrity, providing accurate product information instead of manipulating trademarks for unfair gain [3]

近日，#千禾0商标被指误导消费者零添加#冲上热搜，千禾味业被推上风口浪尖。 今年3月，《消费者报道》杂志对13款宣称"零添加"的酱油进行了检测，结果发现12款检出镉，7款检出总砷。其中，千禾御藏本酿380天酱油中检 测出0.0110mg/kg的镉，这款酱油瓶身上印有"千禾0"字样，但并未明确标注为"零添加"产品。 因此，不少消费者表示，看到千禾酱油瓶身上的"千禾0"字样，自然而然地认为这是"零添加"产品，结果却发现"千禾0"只是一个商标，而非真正 的"零添加"。 而为了平息消费者的"怒火"，3月20日，千禾味业曾发布声明称，"千禾0"商标是其零添加产品的重要标识，不存在误导消费者的行为，但承认让消 费者产生了误会，并对此深表歉意。类似"XX0"的商标还有海天味业、简爱酸奶、壹号土猪肉。据了解，海天味业已成功注册了10个与"海天0"相关 的商标，其中包括6个"海天0"商标和4个"海天0+"商标；"简爱酸奶"将"其他没了"注册为商标，暗示无添加剂；"壹号土猪肉"等均通过拆分商标名 称，让消费者误以为是"土特产"。 有消费者吐槽道，这类操作本质是利用消费者对商标法的认知盲区，通过模糊商品描述与商标的界限，制造信息 ...