以下文章来源于21世纪经济报道 ，作者21记者 21世纪经济报道 . 权威、专业、深度、有趣！用经济思维看世界。 互联网新闻信息服务许可证编号：44120180007 市场和业内期盼已久的商标法修订草案终于进入立法机关审议程序。12月22日，商标法修订草案首次提请全国人大常委会会议审议，修订草案共9章 84条。 早在2023年1月，国家知识产权局就公布了商标法修订草案征求意见稿，直到现在上会审议，征求意见稿已经历近3年的打磨。 这期间，商标恶意注册和恶意诉讼屡屡引起社会关注，"冰墩墩""谷爱凌"等被恶意抢注为商标，"树上熟""白象多半桶""壹号土猪"等带有欺骗性的 注册商标被曝光。 这也是此次修法针对的重点。国家知识产权局局长申长雨介绍，此次商标法修订坚持问题导向，聚焦商标领域突出问题，完善商标注册、管理和保护 制度，并把实践中一些成熟的做法上升为法律。 那么，如何才能根治商标恶意注册和恶意诉讼？ 01 恶意注册商标屡禁不止 中闻律师事务所律师王国华认为，商标恶意注册已成为社会顽疾，成因在于注册人注册商标并不是以正当使用为目的，而是为了搭便车，蹭知名品牌 的商誉。 现行商标法于1983年施行，先后经过4次小规 ...

Group 1 - The core issue involves Shangxuan E-commerce (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. being fined 30,000 RMB for publishing false advertisements on the Douyin platform [1] - The company was established in May 2021 with a registered capital of 10 million RMB and is wholly owned by Bai Xiang Food Co., Ltd. [1] - Bai Xiang has previously faced controversy regarding its advertising practices, particularly concerning the use of the term "Duoban" on its product packaging, which raised questions about misleading marketing [1]

Core Viewpoint - The advertisement for Lafang's "Little Gold Bar Hair Mask" has sparked controversy due to its claim of repairing hair damage in just one minute, drawing comparisons to Pantene's previously criticized "Three-Minute Miracle" [1] Group 1: Product Controversy - Lafang's advertisement states "1 minute is not a trademark, we truly repair," which has led to discussions about the validity of such claims [1] - Pantene faced scrutiny for its "Three-Minute Miracle" claim, which was defended by stating that the name is a registered trademark and not a claim of efficacy [1] - The efficacy claim of Pantene's product, stating "3 minutes repairs three months of accumulated damage," is backed by third-party testing data [1] Group 2: Industry Trends - The issue of misleading advertising is not isolated, as several companies have faced similar accusations regarding their trademarks and promotional language [1] - Other companies, such as Bai Xiang and Qian He Food Co., have also been questioned for their marketing strategies that may play with wording to imply greater efficacy [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the phenomenon of "trademark edge" marketing strategies in various industries, particularly in personal care and food sectors, raising concerns about consumer rights and fair competition [2][7]. Group 1: Trademark Issues - The "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" conditioner has come under scrutiny for its trademark usage, with small print indicating that the trademark does not imply product efficacy [5]. - Similar marketing tactics are observed in other brands, such as "Tide All-in-1 360°" and "Crest 3D White," where the terms used are more about branding than actual product technology [3][5]. - The use of everyday terms as trademarks creates a misleading impression of product quality or effectiveness, leading to consumer confusion [5][6]. Group 2: Legal Perspectives - Legal experts note that the distinction between trademark edge and reasonable borrowing is often unclear and must be determined on a case-by-case basis [9][10]. - Misleading trademarks can harm consumer rights and disrupt fair market competition, as seen in various public controversies involving well-known brands [7][8]. - The legal framework surrounding deceptive trademarks is complex, with challenges in proving consumer harm and establishing causation between trademark use and consumer loss [11]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Challenges - Consumers face significant difficulties in protecting their rights against misleading trademarks, often requiring legal action or complaints to regulatory bodies [10][11]. - The ambiguity in legal standards for trademark edge behavior complicates consumer claims, making it hard to demonstrate losses related to deceptive marketing [11]. - Brands that rely on misleading language rather than product quality risk losing consumer trust in the long run [11].

Core Viewpoint - The trademark "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" has sparked significant public interest and controversy regarding its registration and marketing claims, highlighting potential issues with consumer perception and brand representation [1][2]. Trademark Registration - Procter & Gamble has successfully registered the trademark "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" along with "3 MINUTE MIRACLE" for personal care products, while other related trademarks like "分钟奇迹" and "3分钟奇迹" are currently invalid [2][3]. - The registered trademark "Pantene 3 Minute Miracle" was applied for on August 9, 2019, and has a protection period from March 21, 2020, to March 20, 2030 [3]. Industry Context - The controversy surrounding the trademark is not isolated, as other companies have faced scrutiny for similar marketing practices, indicating a broader trend of potential misleading claims in branding within the consumer goods sector [5].

Core Viewpoint - White Elephant Food is facing public scrutiny due to trademark issues related to its "Half Bag Noodles" and "Half Bucket Noodles" products, which mislead consumers regarding the actual weight of the products [1][2] Group 1: Trademark Controversy - The packaging of "Half Bag Noodles" and "Half Bucket Noodles" claims "large quantity, double satisfaction," leading consumers to believe the products contain significantly more than standard offerings [1] - Actual weight comparisons show that the "Half Bag Noodles" only contain 25 grams more than the regular version, which is a 1/5 to 1/4 increase, contrary to consumer expectations [1] Group 2: Company Response - White Elephant's customer service confirmed that "Half" is a trademark and that the actual weight is as stated on the packaging, acknowledging the public's perception of "playing with words" [2] - The company issued an apology and announced plans to rename the products to "Noodle Cake 120g" and "Noodle Cake 110g," ceasing production of the original packaging within the month [2] Group 3: Company Performance and Market Position - White Elephant Food has experienced significant fluctuations in its market presence, initially gaining popularity with its 1 yuan bone soup noodles in 2003 but later facing competition from brands like Jinmailang [3] - The company rebounded after the "soil pit pickled cabbage" incident in 2022, which improved its brand image and led to a surge in sales, reaching 9.175 billion yuan in 2023, surpassing Jinmailang to become the third in the industry [3] - Despite revenue growth, White Elephant is criticized for its over-reliance on online channels and an imbalanced development between online and offline sales [3]

Core Viewpoint - White Elephant is facing multiple challenges, including a trademark controversy and issues with its pricing strategy, which have led to a trust crisis among consumers and distributors [1][3][4]. Trademark Controversy - The packaging of White Elephant's "Duoban" series still displays "Duoban" as a registered trademark, despite consumer concerns about potential misleading advertising [3][4]. - White Elephant issued an apology and explained that the "Duoban" products were intended to differentiate larger portion sizes from regular ones, but acknowledged the confusion caused [3][4]. - The company announced plans to rename the "Duoban" series and cease production of the original packaging within the month [3][4]. Pricing Issues - There is a discrepancy between online retail prices and offline distributor prices, with some distributors reporting losses due to identical pricing [5][6]. - A distributor noted that the costs associated with logistics and storage often lead to losses for offline distributors, although not all distributors are affected [5][6]. - Analysts suggest that the lack of a balanced pricing strategy between online and offline channels could harm distributor relationships and market stability [6][8]. Channel Strategy - White Elephant has shifted its focus towards online sales, which previously accounted for less than 5% of revenue in 2019, but has since become a priority [7][8]. - The company established an independent e-commerce entity and has been actively engaging in various online platforms to enhance its digital presence [7][8]. - Despite the growth in online sales, balancing the pricing strategy between online and offline channels remains a critical issue for the company's future [8].

Core Viewpoint - The recent trademark controversy surrounding White Elephant Food has highlighted the brand's commitment to quality and consumer trust, showcasing its proactive approach in addressing public concerns and setting a new industry standard [1][3][7]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - White Elephant Food faced public scrutiny due to the trademark status of "多半" on its product packaging, which led to consumer confusion [1]. - In response to the backlash, the company quickly changed the product names to "面饼120克" and "面饼110克," and committed to ceasing the use of the disputed trademark [1][3]. - This decision is estimated to potentially cost the company tens of millions but has enhanced its image among consumers [3]. Group 2: Commitment to Quality - Since its inception in 2000, White Elephant has prioritized product quality, investing in independent testing facilities to ensure raw material safety [3]. - The company has maintained a record of "zero major food safety incidents" over more than two decades, reflecting its dedication to quality and consumer trust [3]. - White Elephant has also led efforts to revise and improve industry standards, demonstrating a commitment to higher quality products [3]. Group 3: Industry Impact - White Elephant's actions serve as a wake-up call for the entire industry, emphasizing the importance of integrity and quality in maintaining consumer trust [3][7]. - The company's approach illustrates that true strength lies in the ability to recognize and rectify mistakes promptly, a quality that is increasingly rare in the business world [7]. - White Elephant embodies the spirit of Henan, showcasing values of honesty, diligence, and responsibility in its operations [4][7].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" trademark has put White Elephant Food Co., Ltd. in an awkward position, raising questions about consumer perception and brand integrity [1][4][12]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - The "Duoban" trademark was intended to differentiate products from regular portion sizes, but it has led to consumer confusion regarding the actual quantity [3][12]. - White Elephant's apology for the misunderstanding has been met with skepticism, as many believe the company is playing word games [4][13]. - The "Duoban" series products have been criticized for misleading packaging, which emphasizes terms like "Duoban" and "Duoban bag," leading consumers to think they are getting more than they actually are [10][11]. Group 2: Sales Performance - In 2023, White Elephant's total sales reached 9.175 billion yuan, surpassing Jinmailang to become the third-largest player in the industry with a market share of 12% [6][19]. - Projections for 2024 indicate that sales revenue could exceed 10 billion yuan, potentially elevating the company to the second position in the industry, surpassing Unification [7][19]. Group 3: Operational Challenges - The trademark issue has exposed underlying problems such as channel imbalance, insufficient terminal penetration, and low internal collaboration efficiency [8][20][22]. - Compared to competitors like Master Kong and Unification, White Elephant has lower visibility in supermarkets, particularly in regions like Anhui and eastern Henan, where sales performance is reported as poor [20]. - The company faces a chaotic pricing system, with discrepancies between online promotional prices and offline wholesale prices [21].

Core Viewpoint - White Elephant Food Co., Ltd. issued an apology regarding consumer misunderstandings related to its "Duoban" trademark, clarifying that the current "Duoban" products are larger versions of their original offerings, and plans to adjust packaging soon [1][2]. Group 1: Company Response and Consumer Feedback - The company acknowledged consumer complaints about the "Duoban" products, which were perceived as misleading due to the trademark's implication of quantity rather than actual product weight [1][2]. - The brand expert defined the phenomenon as "naming inflation," indicating that brands are under pressure to compete, leading to potentially misleading product names [1][5]. Group 2: Industry Trends and Challenges - The instant noodle industry is experiencing stagnation due to various factors, including competition from delivery services and increasing health awareness among consumers [7]. - The market for instant noodles has stabilized at around 43 billion servings annually, following a decline from a peak of 38.52 billion servings in 2016 [7]. - White Elephant Food faces competition from both established brands like Kang Shifu and emerging brands, necessitating a shift in branding and product innovation to maintain market relevance [7][8]. Group 3: Branding and Marketing Strategies - The company's strategy of using names that suggest larger quantities aims to attract price-sensitive consumers, but this could risk damaging brand reputation if the actual product does not meet expectations [7][8]. - Experts suggest that the industry must move beyond superficial branding changes and focus on genuine product innovation to shed negative perceptions associated with instant noodles [8].