Summary of Key Points
Recently, the Trademark Office under the National Intellectual Property Administration launched a campaign to address “sly” trademarks that deceive consumers through clever wordplay. As of May 26th, 1,174 deceptive trademarks have been declared invalid, with the poultry and livestock categories being particularly hit. These trademarks often use tactics such as splitting words during registration (for example, registering “Dezi Tu” and then adding “ji” to form “Dezi Tu Ji”) to mislead consumers into thinking they are genuine products. The regulation is based on the Trademark Law, with the aim of cracking down on speculative marketing practices and protecting both consumers and compliant businesses. While some companies have made adjustments, issues with borderline advertising still exist within the industry, and experts urge businesses to focus more on their products themselves.
What are “sly trademarks,” and why are poultry and livestock categories so vulnerable?
“Sly trademarks” are those created by merchants who exploit loopholes in the system. They split easily misleading keywords during registration (like splitting “tu ji” into “Dezi tu”) to avoid trademark approval, and then combine these parts with product names at the point of sale, blurring the line between the trademark and the actual product, leading consumers to believe they are authentic.
Why are poultry and livestock categories particularly susceptible? Consumers associate terms like “tu” (local) and “nong jia” (rural) with high quality. For instance, local pigs can cost 1-3 times more than regular pork, and local chickens can also command higher prices. Merchants can easily charge a premium without needing to improve their products or processes, making these trademarks highly profitable and thus a target for registration. Examples of such trademarks include “Heishan Tu Ji” and “Canghua Tu Zhu,” which leverage the public’s trust in “organic” or “local” concepts.
How do these trademarks make money, and who are they deceiving?
They exploit the difference in perception between genuine and fake products. Merchants can sell ordinary goods at higher prices by using misleading trademarks. For example, while a legitimate white-feather chicken company like Shengnong has a gross profit margin of only 5.56%, counterfeit local pork merchants can earn 1-3 times more with much lower costs.
Who are the victims?
- Consumers: They end up paying a higher price for what might be ordinary products, losing out on the value they expected.
- Compliant businesses: Those that actually produce high-quality local products face unfair competition from those using deceptive trademarks.
- Public resources: Terms like “tu ji” (local chicken) should not be monopolized by companies, similar to the controversy over the “Tongguan Roujiamo” trademark.
Is this regulation serious? What is the basis and intensity of the action?
This is not a random inspection; it’s part of a systematic effort to address the issue:
- Legal basis: The Trademark Law clearly prohibits the use of deceptive trademarks.
- Intensity of action: Not only were 1,174 trademarks declared invalid, but new applications were also rejected (for example, the “Dezi Tu Ji” trademark was denied), and even a well-known brand like “Yihao Tu Zhu” had its trademark revoked.
- Scope of the campaign: The inspection covered eggs, live animals, and other categories, including terms like “shan li lai de tu” (local from the mountains) and “nong jia tu” (rural local).
Lawyers emphasize that this sends a clear message to the industry: trademarks are not tools for speculation; they cannot be used to deceive consumers.
Company responses
Some companies have taken immediate action, while others are still struggling:
- Large companies: Keming Food removed its “shou gan” (hand-pulled) trademark and apologized, stopping sales of related products; Qianhe Weiye removed the “ling ji add” (zero additives) label; Yuxiang Food also discontinued using the “shou gan” trademark.
- Small and medium-sized companies: For instance, a poultry farmer in Hubei had his “X Shi Tu Ji” trademark canceled, forcing him to temporarily stop selling local chickens and is unsure how to proceed.
- Some still evade regulation: Online retailers use non-trademark claims (e.g., “shan lin li you ji chao mu ji,” where “shan lin li” is a brand name, not a trademark). Kang Shifu’s honey peach drink was criticized for misleading consumers with its claim of using “selected Fenghua honey peaches,” even though the concentrate only contains 20 milligrams per liter.
The way forward
Experts agree on the following:
- Regulation must continue: Without action, more companies will follow suit, leading to a chaotic industry that harms consumers.
- Businesses need to focus on products: Small and medium-sized businesses should stop relying on misleading labels and focus on genuine differences (such as organic certifications or self-bred varieties). Leading companies should abandon borderline practices and build their brands on quality.
- Consumers need to be more discerning: They should not rely solely on labels like “tu” or “nong jia” and should check ingredient lists and certification details.
In summary, this campaign is not the end of the issue but a reminder that short-term gains from clever marketing tactics are unsustainable. Only genuine products will stand the test of time.