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 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].

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].