来后才发现 是'多半'袋面" 。 如此"心机商 标"，也引来网 友的调侃，"断 句的艺术，被一 些人给玩明白 了。" 白象"多半"商标引争议 网友反应激烈， 是因为觉得自己 被骗了。也难 怪，近年来市场 上的"心机商 标"屡见不鲜： 如一品牛肉 三问"心机商标" ：少玩文字游 戏，多点真材实 料_南方+_南方 plus 你购物时会留意 商标吗？近日， 白象食品陷入商 标争议风波。据 媒体报道，争议 点在包装上 的"多半"字样， 其并非是实际克 重，而是已注册 的商标。一经披 露，迅速引发公 众热议，"买的 时候以为是'多 半袋'面，买回 干，"一品牛"是 商标，"肉干"是 产品名；晨光乳 业"供港"牛 奶，"供港"是商 标，与香港并无 关系；"壹号土 猪" ， "壹号 土"是商标；"千 禾0"商标与"零 添加"概念混 淆；今麦郎手打 面，"手打"是商 标……不难发 现，"心机商 标"玩的就是"文 字游戏" ，不仅 损害了消费者利 益，也扰乱了市 场正常秩序。 心机商标如何 玩"文字游戏"？ "心机商标"的本 质，是商家利用 信息不对称，通 过精心设计的商 标来误导消费者 认知。 以白象"多半"为 例，该商标 ...

这个时候许多人就要问了，这样的商标是怎么通过注册的？正如专家所说，商标注册时，审查员不一定 想得很远，比如，多年前可能没有"土"这个时尚消费概念，后来人们才普遍认为"土"有利于身体健康。 再说，只看一些商标本身，其实没有多大问题，而是在与其他文字、图像组合起来使用过程中出了问 题。是否违法，需要结合具体使用场景、使用方式等综合考虑。鉴于中文的博大精深，除了断句的艺 术，还有谐音的艺术，形近字的艺术，等等。过去，玩商标文字游戏的例子不少，以后，或许也不会消 失。然而不必灰心，因为这些小聪明，"多半"讨不了好—— 从法律的角度看，注册合法不等于使用无约束：即使注册后的商标，如果违反法律规定，也可以宣告无 效。如果相关企业卖的不是土猪肉、多半袋面，相关部门还可以依据消费者权益保护法等进行处罚。即 便卖的东西和一般消费者理解中的商品大差不差，也要深思，为何涉事企业回应"不存在欺骗消费者的 情况"，质疑却并未消失。 维 辰 断句的艺术，被一些人给玩明白了。 前有"壹号土猪肉""千禾0酱油"中的"壹号土""千禾0"其实是商标，继而，"山里来的土"鸡蛋、"0添加 西"梅、"120W"充电器等一众"大聪明"又给许多人结结实实 ...

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].