Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding the "Duoban" trademark used by White Elephant Food Co., with consumers questioning the marketing practices and potential misleading implications of the product labeling [1][3]. Group 1: Trademark and Product Information - The "Duoban" trademark is registered by White Elephant Food Co., and the product weight is confirmed to be as stated on the packaging, indicating no issues with the product itself [5]. - White Elephant has 14 trademarks related to "Duoban," of which 5 are registered, including "Duoban," "White Elephant Duoban," "White Elephant Duoban Bag," and "White Elephant Duoban Bucket," most of which were applied for in September 2018 [5]. Group 2: Consumer Perception and Market Response - A media investigation revealed that the "Duoban" products contain 25% to 20% more content compared to previous versions, with price increases of only about 25%, and some flavors even seeing price reductions [9]. - Legal experts emphasize that while trademark registration is a legal right, it should not mislead consumers, highlighting a growing intolerance for "trademark speculation" as consumer protection laws evolve [11].

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 ...