You may have had the same experience: eagerly ordering hand-rolled noodles, only to receive machine-made ones; a 120W fast charger that delivers less than a quarter of its claimed power; or "premium beef jerky" that turns out to be pork based on the ingredient list. In reality, terms like "hand-rolled," "120W," and "premium beef" are trademarks, not product specifications. Merchants register common words describing quality, craftsmanship, origin, or efficacy as trademarks, then use packaging and layout to play word games, leading consumers to subconsciously believe the claims. By exploiting regulatory loopholes, many brands have secured these trademarks early and enjoyed easy profits for over a decade. In 2004, Jinmailang began trademarking its "hand-beaten" series, officially registering and mass-producing noodles two years later. In 2008, Gujing Gongjiu applied for the "vintage base liquor" trademark, implying aging years and brewing techniques. In 2009, No. 1 Earth Pig registered the "No. 1 Earth" trademark... When problems arise, brands trot out the standard defense: it's just a registered trademark, not a product promise. But now, this loophole-exploiting business that has plagued the industry for over a decade is facing strict regulation. Recently, the China Trademark Office launched a "misleading trademark" governance section, opening a public reporting channel that will remain active long-term. As of June 8, 1,219 deceptive trademarks have been declared invalid, including well-known ones like "120W," "Dezi Tu," and "Yipin Niu." Image source: China Trademark Office's "misleading trademark" governance reporting channel Beyond regulation, media scrutiny is intensifying, and consumer backlash is growing. As trademarks return to their identifying function, all brands are pulled back to the same starting line. When the tide recedes, what will brands rely on to retain consumers? Can't Escape Misleading Trademarks? Have You Been Caught? From the list of cleaned-up trademarks, the food industry is the hardest hit, with "earthy" concept trademarks being the most common. According to the China Trademark Office, trademarks like "XX earth chicken," "XX earth pig," and "XX water buffalo" are rampant and have recently been revoked in batches. We analyzed the offending trademarks and found four common deceptive tactics:
Promoting craftsmanship, e.g., "hand-beaten," "ancient method," "handmade," "freshly squeezed," to create a handmade premium.
Implying quality, e.g., "0 additives," "100%," "pure natural," tapping into health-conscious demand.
Indicating origin, e.g., "original origin," "supplied to Hong Kong," "from a certain place," to associate with high-quality production standards.
Hinting at quantity, e.g., "half a bag more," "one and a half times," to suggest larger portions and better value.
Over the past year, several well-known brands have been embroiled in controversies over misleading trademarks. In the noodle category, Chen Keming's "hand-rolled" and Jinmailang's "hand-beaten" noodles are all mass-produced by machines, yet their ads claim they are "like mom's hand-rolled noodles." Additionally, Jane's Yogurt registered the trademark "nothing else," implying clean ingredients, but its vague wording caused widespread misunderstanding. Qianhe Flavor's "Qianhe 0" trademark was also questioned by consumers for using the "zero additives" gimmick to mislead the market. The issue extends beyond food to home appliances. Leading brands like Midea, Gree, Haier, and Aux have all applied for efficacy-related trademarks such as "super energy-saving," "extra energy-saving," and "energy-saving hero." However, most applications were directly rejected by the trademark office. Why are leading brands so keen on registering misleading trademarks? The reason is simple. They register favorable terms like energy efficiency, high quality, or large quantity as trademarks, then highlight them on packaging, so consumers naturally take the trademark text as a real product feature. But when products fail real-world tests, merchants use the "it's just a registered trademark" defense to avoid liability for false advertising. This "win-win" tactic has deepened consumer anger. In April this year, the topic "Some merchants admit 120W is a charger trademark" trended on social media. A prominent Weibo user commented that it's like naming your child "Dr. Wang" or "Mayor Zhang," citing a mediocre Beijing hotel that once called itself "Seven-Star Hotel." Luo Yonghao couldn't resist, commenting under the post: "How did such a rogue trademark get registered?" The misleading trademark tactic is reminiscent of the "sea cucumber fried noodles" joke, a classic case of "crying wine and selling vinegar." A customer orders "sea cucumber fried noodles," finds no sea cucumber, and confronts the owner. The chef comes out and says, "My name is Sea Cucumber, and I fried the noodles, so it's called sea cucumber fried noodles!" Knowing It Misleads, Why Do Brands Persist? As the regulatory axe falls, involved brands scramble to respond—some sincerely apologize, others plead innocence.
- On April 1, Jinmailang Group Chairman Fan Xianguo released a video response, admitting "hand-beaten" is a registered trademark and announcing an immediate halt to production of all products bearing the "hand-beaten" trademark.
- On May 25, Chen Keming Food Co., Ltd. issued an apology, admitting imprecision in product labeling that caused consumer confusion, and announced a full stop to production and sales of products with "hand-rolled" claims.
- On March 21, Qianhe issued a statement saying the "0 series" is an important identifier for its zero-additive products, created to differentiate them, and denied any intent to mislead.
- On June 2, No. 1 Earth Pig founder Chen Sheng said the company understands and supports the state's initiative to rectify misleading trademarks but believes the "No. 1 Earth" trademark was "wrongly caught" in this campaign. Image source: China Trademark Office - trademark rejection cases Interestingly, starting April 29, media repeatedly contacted Keming Food, but the company did not respond. Only after CCTV exposed the issue on May 25 and public opinion escalated did the less-than-sincere apology arrive—whether out of genuine remorse or fear remains unclear. Why do brands dare to do this despite knowing it invites controversy and consumer backlash? One reason is the low cost of deception and high arbitrage potential. A trademark application costs a few hundred yuan in official fees, and registration costs a few hundred to a few thousand yuan for long-term use. Even if the trademark is later invalidated, in most cases only the right to use it is revoked, with little retroactive pursuit of profits from misleading sales. The cost of wrongdoing is minimal. A decade ago, a Wuhan consumer sued Jinmailang over its hand-beaten noodles. The court ruled that the "hand-beaten" trademark misled consumers into believing the noodles were handmade, when they were machine-made. The merchant lost and paid 16,000 yuan in compensation, confirming the tactic's illegality. But a mere 16,000 yuan is no deterrent for a leading company with billions in revenue; Jinmailang continued selling for another ten years. For most consumers, the cost of seeking redress far exceeds the product's value. Even if they notice, they either lack the time to complain or find complaints futile, so they silently accept the loss. Another reason is that early regulation was lax. In the past, intellectual property and market regulation were separate systems. Trademark registration only examined whether the mark itself was compliant, and the review process couldn't prevent brands from using deliberate packaging or hidden misleading language after obtaining the trademark. Grassroots regulators focused on counterfeit, three-no, and substandard products, and the textual traps hidden in registered trademarks were not part of routine inspections. Intervention typically occurred only after concentrated complaints, and by the time regulation caught up, such speculative trademarks had already flooded supermarkets nationwide. Furthermore, in mature industries like food, daily chemicals, and home appliances, product homogenization is severe, and R&D innovation is time-consuming and risky. Trademarks become the fastest way to differentiate. Leading brands seize the opportunity, and smaller merchants follow suit to avoid being eliminated, eventually dragging the entire industry into speculation. But misleading trademarks are a double-edged sword for brands. Once consumers feel "tricked by word games," they not only blacklist the specific product but also question the entire product line, potentially tarnishing the industry's reputation. Now, amid the wave of rational and health-conscious consumption, consumers' awareness and discernment have greatly improved. They are no longer passive recipients of marketing rhetoric. With the proliferation of short-video science education, product reviews, and anti-counterfeiting content, market information is highly transparent. Word games in trademarks, tricks in ingredient lists, and inflated specs are quickly exposed by netizens. "The buyer is no match for the seller," a consumer commented on a video exposing misleading trademarks. "Money is a vote, and I will permanently blacklist brands that play tricks." Playing Tricks Is Contrary to Building a Brand Some brands may feel "wronged." They thought trademarks would help them showcase advantages faster in competition, but instead, they've had negative effects. To understand why, we must first understand what a trademark is. The history of brands and trademarks dates back to ancient Egypt, where court officials used them to distinguish product quality and origin. Without trademarks, brands wouldn't exist. With trade globalization and the emergence of the world's factory (e.g., the same pair of Nike shoes may be produced in different regions), trademarks have evolved from merely distinguishing the source of goods or services to serving as a guarantee of quality. Modern brand theories, whether David Aaker's Brand Equity model or Kevin Keller's CBBE model (Customer-Based Brand Equity), all affirm that goodwill and consumer mindshare are more important than trademarks. Brands that use misleading trademarks to take shortcuts are simultaneously planting landmines under their goodwill and customer loyalty—putting the cart before the horse. Generally, the more distant the relationship between a trademark and the product, the more significant the trademark's role in carrying goodwill. If a trademark is closely related to the product's attributes, nature, or use, it cannot effectively serve as a carrier of goodwill, and its distinctiveness weakens. For example, "Haier" and "Kodak" are completely coined words with no inherent meaning, making them strong trademarks. Such trademarks have clear distinguishing effects and receive the strongest legal protection. Despite lacking meaning, they haven't stopped these brands from becoming famous. Ordinary brands sell products; excellent brands sell values. Products satisfy material needs, while brand philosophy satisfies spiritual belonging. Therefore, good brands are not created by advertising but by user experience. In 1997, when Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy, Steve Jobs said at an internal meeting, "To me, marketing is about values." He didn't compare CPU speeds or memory sizes with competitors; instead, he used "Think Different" to associate Apple with "the crazy ones who change the world." "People don't remember products; they remember what you stand for," he said. Brands trying to use trademarks for marketing are essentially abandoning their values. If everyone relies on textual exaggeration, the industry falls into futile involution, leaving no genuine reputation and collectively eroding consumer trust. An era of trademark speculation has come to an end. In the future, brands that will be remembered, trusted, and inspire loyalty are those that are long-termists—steadfastly making good products, honestly marketing, and upholding brand values.