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 - 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 - The article discusses the recent controversy surrounding the "Duoban" noodle product from Baixiang, highlighting the implications of marketing strategies and consumer perceptions in the competitive instant noodle market. Group 1: Product Controversy - Baixiang's "Duoban" noodle was found to be a trademark name rather than indicating a larger quantity, with only a 25g increase from the base product, leading to consumer backlash and accusations of misleading marketing [2][4] - Following the controversy, Baixiang announced a rebranding of the "Duoban" series to "Noodle 120g" and "Noodle 110g" to clarify the product's weight and avoid further consumer confusion [4][6] Group 2: Market Position and Growth - Baixiang's sales reached 9.175 billion yuan in 2023, closing in on the 9.849 billion yuan sales of its competitor, Uni-President [6][22] - The brand has gained significant market share, with reports suggesting it may have surpassed Uni-President in 2024, although this has not been officially confirmed [6][22] Group 3: Brand Evolution - Baixiang has transformed from a low-end market player to a leading brand, leveraging crises in the industry to position itself as a "national treasure" and appealing to consumer sentiment [8][13] - The brand's marketing strategy has included innovative product launches and a strong presence on social media platforms, contributing to its rapid growth [18][22] Group 4: Challenges Ahead - Despite impressive growth, Baixiang faces challenges such as reliance on marketing strategies that may not sustain long-term growth, and potential issues with pricing strategies affecting profitability [23][29] - The overall instant noodle market in China is experiencing stagnation, with a decline in consumption from 463.6 billion servings in 2020 to an estimated 438 billion servings in 2024, intensifying competition among brands [25][28]

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].

Core Viewpoint - The company Bai Xiang is currently embroiled in a trademark dispute regarding the "Duo Ban" trademark, which has led to an apology and a commitment to adjust product packaging [1][5]. Trademark Application Process - Bai Xiang's application for the "Duo Ban" trademark dates back to September 2018, undergoing multiple stages including rejection, re-examination, and defense before successful registration [3][4]. - The trademark application process has become increasingly stringent, making it difficult for companies to secure similar trademarks, as noted by the agency involved [3]. Trademark Dispute Details - The "Duo Ban" trademark was initially rejected in March 2021 but was successfully registered by September 2021 after a re-examination [4]. - The agency responsible for the disputed "Duo Ban" trademark is Henan Zhi Yi Intellectual Property Agency, which has indicated that the current trademark application environment is challenging [3][4]. Company Response - In response to the trademark controversy, Bai Xiang stated that the "Duo Ban" product was developed to differentiate larger portion sizes (110-120 grams) from regular products (70 grams) for consumer convenience [5].

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 the "Duoban" trademark by White Elephant Food highlights the potential for consumer misunderstanding due to marketing strategies that may blur the lines of clarity and transparency [1][2][3] Group 1: Company Response and Consumer Perception - White Elephant Food confirmed that "Duoban" is a registered trademark and that the actual product weight is indicated on the packaging, asserting that there is no issue with the product itself [1] - The company stated that the "Duoban" products are larger versions of their standard offerings, aiming to differentiate them for consumer selection [1] - Despite the company's explanations and apologies, the actual increase in product weight (25 grams) did not meet consumer expectations of "more than half," leading to claims of misleading marketing [1][2] Group 2: Marketing Strategy and Consumer Rights - The use of the term "Duoban" has historical context, as White Elephant previously promoted a "Duoban" product with a clear increase in quantity, which may have reinforced consumer expectations [2] - The article emphasizes that marketing strategies should not obscure information, as this can lead to consumer trust issues, especially for a leading company in the industry [2][3] - Consumer rights laws in China mandate that businesses provide truthful and comprehensive product information, raising questions about the appropriateness of the trademark's usage [2] Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - Suggestions for improving packaging design include using equal font sizes for trademark explanations and product names or adding clearer definitions to avoid consumer confusion [3] - The article advocates for enhanced semantic review mechanisms in trademark registration to prevent public misunderstanding when everyday terms are used as trademarks [3] - It stresses the importance of maintaining transparency in marketing practices to protect brand value and consumer trust in the long run [3]