Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by Chinese brands and their founders, particularly focusing on the phenomenon of "old-style" leaders who struggle to adapt to modern consumer expectations and communication styles, leading to public relations crises [4][6][14]. Group 1: Brand Value and Challenges - In 2025, the overall brand value of the top 100 Chinese brands increased by approximately 25% compared to the previous year, indicating a positive trend in brand valuation despite individual challenges faced by certain brands [4]. - The term "old-style" or "老登" is used to describe founders who, despite past successes, fail to connect with contemporary consumer sentiments and are criticized for their outdated approaches [4][6]. Group 2: Public Relations Failures - Founders like 贾国龙 of 西贝 have publicly stated their lack of understanding of public relations, which has been identified as a significant issue in their ability to engage with consumers effectively [3][6]. - The public discourse surrounding 西贝's pre-cooked food controversy highlights that the core issue is not the definition of pre-cooked food but rather the consumers' right to know about the products they purchase [6][9]. Group 3: Characteristics of "Old-Style" Leaders - The "old-style" leaders exhibit three main characteristics: high ego, path dependence, and lack of empathy, which collectively hinder their ability to adapt to new market dynamics [4][14]. - High ego leads to a self-centered approach where leaders believe they are the sole definers of truth, while path dependence causes them to rely on outdated methods for success [4][14]. Group 4: Case Studies of Missteps - The internal communication from 俞敏洪 of 新东方, which focused on personal experiences rather than addressing employee concerns, exemplifies the dangers of self-centered communication in a modern context [9][10]. - The marketing missteps of brands like 白象 and 小米 illustrate how traditional marketing strategies can backfire in an era where consumers are more discerning and demand transparency [11][12]. Group 5: Recommendations for Improvement - Brands need to adapt to the current communication environment by establishing comprehensive public relations systems that monitor social sentiment and ensure all external communications are carefully managed [15][16]. - It is crucial for brands to engage with consumers on an equal footing, prioritizing emotional connection over legal compliance, and to communicate with sincerity rather than defensiveness during crises [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - The long-awaited trademark law revision draft has entered the legislative process, aiming to address issues such as malicious trademark registration and litigation, which have garnered significant public attention [4][6]. Group 1: Background and Context - The State Intellectual Property Office released a draft for public consultation in January 2023, which has undergone nearly three years of refinement before being presented for legislative review [5]. - As of the end of 2024, China has accumulated 83.52 million trademark applications, with 49.77 million valid registered trademarks, leading the world in both categories [8]. Group 2: Issues in Trademark Registration - Malicious trademark registrations and lawsuits have become prevalent, with examples including the malicious registration of terms like "Bing Dwen Dwen" and "Gu Ailing" [6][8]. - The current trademark law, enacted in 1983, has undergone four minor revisions, with this being the first major overhaul in over five years [7]. Group 3: Legislative Changes - The revision draft emphasizes problem-oriented solutions, focusing on improving trademark registration, management, and protection systems [15]. - The draft specifies that applications for trademark registration that are not intended for use and exceed normal business needs will be rejected, enhancing the criteria for registration [16]. - It strengthens the protection of well-known trademarks by prohibiting the registration of similar trademarks across different product categories, regardless of their registration status [17]. Group 4: Enforcement and Penalties - The draft introduces penalties for misleading public use of registered trademarks, including fines of up to 50,000 yuan for non-compliance [18]. - It aims to address cases of malicious registration and litigation effectively, thereby maintaining market order and protecting consumer rights [19]. Group 5: Judicial Experience and Future Considerations - The draft incorporates judicial experiences by imposing penalties for malicious trademark litigation and holding offenders liable for damages [22]. - There are suggestions to increase official fees for trademark applications to deter malicious registrations, as the current fee structure presents minimal economic barriers [20].

Core Viewpoint - The long-awaited trademark law revision draft has entered the legislative review process, aiming to address issues such as malicious trademark registration and litigation, which have garnered significant social attention [3][4]. Group 1: Trademark Law Revision - The current trademark law, in effect since 1983, is undergoing its first major revision in over five years, with the draft consisting of 9 chapters and 84 articles [3][4]. - As of the end of 2024, China has a cumulative trademark registration application volume of 83.523 million, with 49.777 million valid registered trademarks, both ranking first in the world [4]. - The revision focuses on prominent issues in the trademark field, including the prevalence of malicious registrations and the phenomenon of "heavy registration, light usage" [4][8]. Group 2: Malicious Trademark Registration - Malicious trademark registration has become a persistent social issue, with cases like "Bing Dwen Dwen" and "Gu Ailing" being maliciously registered, leading to public outcry [3][4]. - The revision draft aims to prevent registrations that are not intended for legitimate use and to strengthen the protection of well-known trademarks [9][10]. - The draft specifies that applications for trademarks that are clearly beyond normal production and business needs will not be registered, enhancing the criteria for registration [9][10]. Group 3: Enforcement and Penalties - The revision includes provisions for penalties against misleading use of registered trademarks, with fines of up to 50,000 yuan for non-compliance [10]. - It also introduces measures to address malicious litigation, holding those who file such lawsuits accountable for damages [11][12]. - The draft aims to close loopholes that allow malicious trademark holders to exploit legitimate businesses through litigation [12].

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 - The increasing use of specific words or numbers as trademarks in the food industry raises concerns about the clarity and accuracy of product information conveyed to consumers, as exemplified by the "Duoban" (多半) trademark used by White Elephant Foods, which has led to public debate regarding its implications on product weight perception [1][2][3] Group 1: Trademark Usage and Consumer Perception - The "Duoban" trademark is registered and does not directly describe the product's weight, yet consumers interpret it as indicating a significant increase in quantity, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction [1][2] - White Elephant Foods' "Duoban" products are marketed as larger portions, but the actual weight increase is only about 25 grams compared to standard products, which does not align with consumer expectations of "more than half" [3][4] - The trademark's registration may have been facilitated by extensive marketing efforts, which have established a strong association between the term and the brand, despite its misleading implications [4][5] Group 2: Industry Implications and Regulatory Concerns - The incident highlights a broader issue in the food industry where packaging and branding often mislead consumers, leading to a loss of trust in brands and the industry as a whole [6][10] - There is a call for stricter regulations and standards regarding the use of trademarks that may mislead consumers about product attributes, emphasizing the need for clarity and accuracy in marketing [12][13] - The reliance on misleading marketing tactics can harm long-term brand loyalty and market stability, as consumers may avoid brands that they perceive as deceptive [14][15]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding "clever trademarks" in the food industry, particularly focusing on the case of White Elephant Food's "Duoban" trademark, which misleads consumers regarding product weight and content [2][10][12]. Group 1: Trademark Controversy - White Elephant Food's "Duoban" trademark is criticized for misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing a larger quantity of noodles than what is actually provided [3][14]. - The term "Duoban" is a registered trademark rather than an actual weight measurement, leading to public outrage and perceptions of deception [4][7]. - The phenomenon of "clever trademarks" is not isolated, with other examples including "Yipin Beef Jerky" and "Qianhe 0" soy sauce, which also mislead consumers through similar tactics [8][26]. Group 2: Misleading Marketing Practices - The essence of "clever trademarks" lies in exploiting information asymmetry to mislead consumer perceptions [12][13]. - Companies often use visual marketing strategies that create misconceptions about product quantity or quality, as seen with the "Duoban" noodles and "Gongang" milk [15][16]. - The use of split terminology in trademarks can create positive associations in consumers' minds, further complicating the issue of misleading branding [20][21]. Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Framework - The registration of misleading trademarks often occurs because the trademark examination process does not identify them as deceptive at the time of application [39][40]. - The article highlights the challenges in trademark regulation, noting that existing laws may not adequately prevent the registration of misleading trademarks [31][38]. - Legal remedies exist for consumers misled by such trademarks, including the possibility of punitive damages and collective lawsuits [59][60]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - The article suggests that stricter regulations and standards should be established to prevent the misuse of terms like "zero additives" and "natural" in marketing [71][72]. - Companies are encouraged to prioritize integrity and transparency in their branding practices to build consumer trust [76][78]. - Enhanced consumer education is recommended to help the public critically assess product labels and marketing claims rather than relying solely on trademarks [79].

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 trademark dispute surrounding the "Duo Ban" (多半) brand by White Elephant and the "1 Bag and a Half" (1袋半) series by Jinmailang highlights the complexities of trademark registration and consumer perception in the instant noodle market [1][2]. Group 1: Trademark Issues - Jinmailang has faced multiple rejections in its attempts to register the "1 Bag and a Half" trademark since 2015, with the latest application status being "under substantive examination" as of September 19, 2024, and a previous application on May 18, 2023, being "under review after rejection" [1]. - White Elephant's "Duo Ban" products are marketed as larger portion sizes, with the company stating that the trademark was intended to differentiate these products from standard sizes for consumer convenience [2]. Group 2: Product Offerings - Jinmailang's "1 Bag and a Half" instant noodles are prominently featured in their flagship store, with packaging emphasizing a net weight of 120 grams, compared to the 88 grams of their "Soup is Good" series [1]. - White Elephant's "Duo Ban" products are based on a 70-gram noodle cake, now offered in larger sizes of 110-120 grams, aiming to clarify product offerings for consumers [2].