Group 1 - The article discusses the controversy surrounding the advertising claims of LaFang's "Little Gold Bar Hair Mask," which states that it can repair hair damage in just one minute, drawing comparisons to Pantene's "Three-Minute Miracle" claim [1] - Pantene faced criticism for its "Three-Minute Miracle" slogan, which was defended by the company as a registered trademark rather than a claim of efficacy, with supporting data from third-party testing [1] - The article highlights that this is not the first instance of well-known brands facing scrutiny over their marketing language, citing examples like Bai Xiang's "Half" series and Qian He Food's various trademarks [1] Group 2 - The article does not provide additional relevant content for this section.

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]