酸奶品牌加速推新，口味创新与渠道精耕成突围方向。 在酸奶市场，健康诉求升级是明显趋势。消费者开始关注成分表，追求"清洁标签"，即成分简单、无多 余添加的产品，这也是高端酸奶的主要卖点。同时，高端酸奶在产品开发上也加入了更多消费者诉求， 如口味创新、功能定位等。 据了解，卡士此次推出的"吃酸"系列新品为低温产品，保质期25天，以"酸"味为主打，添加云南酸木 瓜、岭南粉芭乐、西北黄杏等酸味原材料，意在以"酸"破局。卡士方面向南都湾财社记者表示，对天 然、健康与风味在地化的探索，正成为乳品创新中极具活力的方向。卡士"吃酸"系列目标人群以资深中 产为主，包括对酸味偏好、热衷新奇美食的人群。 记者从电商平台品牌店铺看到，卡士"吃酸"系列新品单杯的价格约10元，同样属于高端酸奶定位。在渠 道布局上，据品牌方介绍，新品已经铺货渠道以高精超市为主，包括ole'、麦德龙、永辉、胖东来等。 在此之前，卡士由于长期以来的高端定位，在渠道选择上有所侧重，主要布局高端商超、精品超市与新 零售渠道等。 高端酸奶涌向胖东来等精品超市 行业竞争突围指向差异化赛道 近期，高端酸奶品牌卡士推出新品"吃酸"系列，该系列产品在口味上进行创新，强调" ...

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 ...