Core Insights - The high-end yogurt brand, CASS, has launched a new product line called "Eat Sour," emphasizing sour flavors and targeting premium supermarkets for distribution [1][2][3] - The yogurt industry is experiencing intense competition, with traditional yogurt market growth slowing and frequent price wars leading to declining profit margins [2][4] - Health-conscious consumer trends are driving demand for clean-label products, which feature simple ingredients without unnecessary additives [2][3] Product Innovation - CASS's "Eat Sour" series is a low-temperature product with a shelf life of 25 days, featuring ingredients like Yunnan sour papaya and Northwest yellow apricot to highlight sourness [2][3] - The pricing for CASS's new product is approximately 10 yuan per cup, aligning with its high-end positioning [2] Channel Strategy - High-end yogurt brands, including CASS, Le Pure, Jian Ai, and Yoplait, are increasingly focusing on premium supermarket channels such as ole', Metro, Yonghui, and Pang Donglai [1][3][4] - The choice of premium supermarkets is driven by the alignment of brand image and consumer demographics, as these channels cater to health-conscious, high-income consumers willing to pay a premium for quality products [4][5] Market Trends - The shift towards high-end positioning among yogurt brands is seen as a key strategy to differentiate from traditional brands and avoid direct competition in regular channels [5]

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 controversy surrounding White Elephant instant noodles stems from the misleading use of the trademark "Duoban" (meaning "more than half"), which consumers interpreted as indicating a larger quantity, rather than a brand name [1][2][3]. Group 1: Trademark Issues - The term "Duoban" is confirmed to be a registered trademark of White Elephant, not an indication of increased product weight [4][5]. - White Elephant's other trademark applications, such as "Duoban" bags and buckets, have been rejected and are currently invalid [5][6]. - The "Duoyiban" (meaning "more than half") product only offers a 25% increase in noodle quantity compared to standard products, raising further consumer concerns [2][7]. Group 2: Industry Trends - The phenomenon of "trademark edge cases" is prevalent in the food industry, where companies exploit descriptive terms to mislead consumers [2][11][13]. - This practice reflects a deeper conflict between corporate profit motives and consumer rights protection, as companies prioritize market share over transparency [3][14]. Group 3: Consumer Reactions - Following the revelation about the "Duoban" trademark, public backlash against White Elephant has intensified, with consumers expressing disappointment and distrust [16][18]. - The incident highlights the gap between consumer expectations for brand integrity and the reality of misleading marketing practices [18]. Group 4: Company Background - White Elephant Food Co., established in 1997, focuses on producing high-quality noodle products and has expanded its operations across multiple provinces in China [10]. - The company has completed a B+ funding round, attracting investments from notable firms like Fosun Group and GF Securities [10]. Group 5: Regulatory Context - The use of misleading trademarks contradicts the principles outlined in the Trademark Law, which mandates honesty and transparency in marketing [14][15]. - The National Food Safety Standards require that food labeling be truthful and objective, further emphasizing the need for compliance in marketing practices [14].

近日，#千禾0商标被指误导消费者零添加#冲上热搜，千禾味业被推上风口浪尖。 今年3月，《消费者报道》杂志对13款宣称"零添加"的酱油进行了检测，结果发现12款检出镉，7款检出总砷。其中，千禾御藏本酿380天酱油中检 测出0.0110mg/kg的镉，这款酱油瓶身上印有"千禾0"字样，但并未明确标注为"零添加"产品。 因此，不少消费者表示，看到千禾酱油瓶身上的"千禾0"字样，自然而然地认为这是"零添加"产品，结果却发现"千禾0"只是一个商标，而非真正 的"零添加"。 而为了平息消费者的"怒火"，3月20日，千禾味业曾发布声明称，"千禾0"商标是其零添加产品的重要标识，不存在误导消费者的行为，但承认让消 费者产生了误会，并对此深表歉意。类似"XX0"的商标还有海天味业、简爱酸奶、壹号土猪肉。据了解，海天味业已成功注册了10个与"海天0"相关 的商标，其中包括6个"海天0"商标和4个"海天0+"商标；"简爱酸奶"将"其他没了"注册为商标，暗示无添加剂；"壹号土猪肉"等均通过拆分商标名 称，让消费者误以为是"土特产"。 有消费者吐槽道，这类操作本质是利用消费者对商标法的认知盲区，通过模糊商品描述与商标的界限，制造信息 ...