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].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" trademark on White Elephant's instant noodle products has sparked significant public discussion, leading the company to issue an apology and clarify the product's weight and branding strategy [4][5]. Group 1: Product and Branding - The "Duoban" products are based on a 70g noodle cake, now offered in larger 110-120g sizes, aimed at distinguishing them from regular products [5]. - The trademark "Duoban" is intended to help consumers identify larger portion products, and the company acknowledges the potential for consumer misunderstanding [5][6]. - The "Duoban" brand's noodle cake weighs 110g, which is nearly 50% more than the standard 75g noodle cake in regular White Elephant products [6]. Group 2: Market Performance - White Elephant ranks first in sales within the instant noodle category on the Douyin e-commerce platform, with sales between 50 million to 75 million yuan in the past month [7]. - The brand's self-operated sales account for 51.72% of its total sales on Douyin, while influencer sales contribute 12.85% [7]. - The highest-selling product under the "Duoban" brand has generated sales of 100,000 to 250,000 yuan in the last month, significantly lower than other popular products like the Sweet Spicy Turkey Noodle [7].

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the "Duoban" trademark on White Elephant's noodle products, which has sparked consumer confusion and criticism regarding marketing practices [2] - White Elephant clarified that "Duoban" is indeed a registered trademark and that the product weights are accurately displayed on the packaging, with the "Duoban" products being larger versions of their standard offerings [2] - The company has apologized for any misunderstandings caused and plans to adjust the packaging to prevent future consumer confusion [2] Group 2 - The first domestically produced nine-valent HPV vaccine has been approved for sale in China, marking a significant development in the market and breaking the long-standing foreign monopoly [5] - This vaccine is the second nine-valent HPV vaccine globally, indicating a competitive advancement in the healthcare sector [5] Group 3 - The latest Federal Reserve "Beige Book" report indicates a slight decline in U.S. economic activity, with rising policy uncertainty and price pressures affecting businesses and consumers [8] - The report highlights mixed performance in consumer spending and a slowdown in manufacturing activity, with some businesses preemptively increasing purchases due to tariff impacts [8] - The residential real estate market remains stable, but new housing starts and construction activities are generally stagnating or slowing down [8] Group 4 - Cartier has confirmed that user data has been leaked, affecting customers globally, including in China, with the leaked information comprising names and birth dates but not banking details [11] - This incident follows a similar data breach involving another luxury brand, Dior, indicating a growing concern over data security in the luxury goods sector [11]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" brand of instant noodles from Bai Xiang has led to public scrutiny regarding its packaging and marketing claims, prompting the company to issue an apology and commit to revising its product labels to prevent consumer misunderstanding [1][3]. Group 1: Product Details - Bai Xiang's "Duoban" instant noodle products are available in larger sizes, with the "Duoban" bagged beef noodles containing 110g of noodle cakes, which is nearly 50% more than the standard 75g offered in regular Bai Xiang products [3][5]. - The "Duoyiban" brand offers a 100g noodle cake, which is significantly larger than the 60g variant, indicating a clear differentiation in product offerings [5]. - Bai Xiang has a variety of instant noodle products with different weights, including "super large bags" and other series, showcasing a diverse product line within the same flavor category [5]. Group 2: Trademark and Sales Performance - Bai Xiang has registered several trademarks related to the "Duoban" brand between 2018 and 2021, although some were rejected due to potential consumer confusion regarding product quantity [5]. - In the instant noodle category on Douyin, Bai Xiang ranks first in sales, with recent figures indicating sales between 50 million to 75 million yuan, significantly outperforming competitors like Kang Shifu and Jin Mai Lang [5][7]. - The sales breakdown on Douyin shows that 51.72% of Bai Xiang's revenue comes from its self-operated accounts, while influencer accounts contribute 12.85%, and product cards account for 35.4% [7].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Duoban" trademark on Bai Xiang's instant noodle packaging highlights consumer confusion and potential misleading marketing practices, raising concerns about consumer rights and corporate ethics [1][2][3]. Group 1: Company Practices - Bai Xiang's "Duoban" trademark is intended to indicate a larger product size (110-120 grams) compared to its previous 70-gram offering, but the marketing strategy has been perceived as a deceptive play on words [2]. - The use of the term "Duoban" has been criticized as a marketing gimmick that misleads consumers into thinking they are receiving more product than they actually are, which could damage the company's reputation [2][3]. Group 2: Industry Implications - The incident serves as a warning to other companies in the industry about the risks of engaging in misleading marketing tactics, as seen in similar cases with other brands [4]. - The market economy favors honest and trustworthy companies, and those that resort to deceptive practices may face long-term consequences, including loss of consumer trust and brand reputation [3][4].