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].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the prevalence of misleading trademarks, referred to as "heartfelt trademarks," which often confuse consumers and can lead to unintentional purchases due to their deceptive nature [1][2]. Group 1: Characteristics of "Heartfelt Trademarks" - "Heartfelt trademarks" often feature confusing and misleading phrases that do not accurately represent the product's characteristics, such as "mountain soil eggs" or "only water, salt, and flour" [1][2]. - These trademarks are designed to be highly deceptive at first glance, making it difficult for consumers to discern their true meaning until they are closely examined [2][3]. Group 2: Consumer Awareness and Misunderstanding - Many consumers fall victim to these trademarks due to a lack of awareness and the inability to recognize the potential for such misleading branding [2]. - The article highlights that even professional trademark examiners may overlook the risks associated with these unusual trademarks, as their assessments are often based solely on textual materials without considering the actual products [2][3]. Group 3: Regulatory Suggestions - To mitigate the risks posed by these trademarks, it is suggested that regulatory bodies require applicants to provide additional materials clarifying the specific products associated with unusual trademarks [3]. - This approach could help eliminate confusion and prevent deceptive marketing practices by ensuring that trademarks are clearly linked to their respective products [3].