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 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 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].