CHANG TSI
Insights
(All cited facts in this article are from publicly available news reports and legal documents. The views expressed are solely those of the author. If any infringement or contentious content is involved, please contact the author for removal.)
Recently, the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark of Qianhe Condiment And Food Co., Ltd. has sparked widespread debate due to its association with the concept of "zero additives." As a trademark legal practitioner, the author believes that, from the perspective of the current Trademark Law, the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark itself does not violate prohibitive regulations, and its registration legitimacy should be recognized. However, the company’s integration of the trademark with "zero additive" marketing has led to consumer misconceptions about product characteristics, highlighting regulatory gaps in governing "zero additive" claims. This article explores how to better regulate the reasonable use of trademarks and labeling to prevent consumer deception, from the angles of trademark law, food safety law, and market supervision.
Under Article 10 of the Trademark Law, registration is prohibited for "marks that are deceptive and likely to mislead the public regarding the quality, characteristics, or origin of goods." To determine whether “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) is deceptive, we may review it from the following three aspects:
(1) Distinctiveness and Meaning of the Trademark: “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) combines the trade name “千禾” (“Qianhe in Chinese”) of the registrant Qianhe Condiment And Food Co., Ltd. , with the numeral "0." The numeral "0" is polysemous—it could signify "zero additives", a product series designation ("Zero Series"), “Start from zero”, or other meanings. Absent explicit labeling of "zero additives," the trademark itself does not directly describe the product’s characteristics or quality. Therefore, it is not inherently deceptive and should qualify for registration.
(2) Trademark Registration Status: From the online trademark search system of the National IP Administration (“CNIPA”), the author found that Qianhe Condiment And Food Co., Ltd. has registered multiple “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) formative trademarks in Class 30 on goods soy sauce, etc., such as Registrations for Trademark 35121564 & 35126959 (registered on July 21, 2019), and Trademark 46685301, 46698998, 46717423 (registered February 14, 2021). These registrations indicate that the CNIPA has confirmed that the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) marks are not deceptive and inherently registrable, compliance with the Trademark Law, and thus through examination by the CNIPA, they have been approved for registrations.
Whereas, in the meantime, the author also noticed that some applications for “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) marks were officially refused. For example, Application No. 52997347 (containing “Qianhe 0 in Chinese” and the obvious descriptive term "Zero Add Soy Sauce") was invalidated due to refusal, and Nos. 69484641 and 73670138, are still pending under review of refusal. Although through public resources, there is no information about the refusal grounds to the aforesaid marks., the author assume that the marks were refused due to the meaning of the mark and the inherent registrability issue of the marks.
From the above, we can see that when the examiners at the CNIPA examine the trademark applications, they will thoroughly scrutinize the registrability of the trademark per se, and the examination standards may also be adjusted in response to the developments of the social & economy.
(3) Misleading Potential in Practical Use: From the above, we can summarize that the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark itself is not explicitly misleading and has been legally registered. The use of the trademark by Qianhe Flavor Industry Food Co., Ltd. and its authorized parties complies with legal requirements.
However, why have consumers reacted so strongly to the claim that "’千禾0’(‘Qianhe 0 in Chinese’) is merely a trademark which is unrelated to 'zero additives'"? Where does the issue lie?
The focus may lie in the company’s marketing strategy: prominently enlarging the "0" symbol and consistently associating it with "zero additives" in promotional campaigns. By tightly linking the“千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark to "zero additives," consumers have come to directly equate “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) with "zero additives."
This demonstrates that the legality of a trademark and the compliance/reasonableness of its usage context must be evaluated separately. Even if the trademark itself is unproblematic, its application and promotional practices may still lead to consumer deception.
From the above, we can concluded that: While the registration of the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark originally complied with the Trademark Law, the company’s extended use of the trademark has caused public confusion and may simultaneously undermine the trademark’s inherent distinctiveness and registrability.
Although the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark is legally registered, the company’s exploitation of its ambiguous association with "zero additives" highlights deficiencies in current regulations governing such claims:
(1) Lack of Legal Definition for "Zero Additives": China’s General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods (GB 7718-2011) does not provide a clear definition for “zero additives.” Companies often self-define it as “no added preservatives, flavor enhancers, or specific additives.” However, there is no unified standard on whether naturally occurring substances in raw materials (e.g., cadmium, arsenic) fall under the scope of “additives.” For example, Qianhe Flavor Industry Food Co., Ltd. argues that “cadmium originates from raw materials,” yet consumers continue to question the authenticity of its “zero additive” claims.
(2) Lagging Regulatory Frameworks: In 2024, the Secretariat of the National Food Safety Standard Review Committee issued the Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods, proposing a ban on terms like "zero additives." However, this amendment has not yet taken effect. Currently, labeling products as "zero additives" remains legally permissible.
(3) Judicial Challenges in Legal Determinations: As mentioned, there is no explicit legal definition of "zero additives," and existing laws do not explicitly prohibit the use of such terms. Consequently, judicial practice faces difficulties in determining the legality of "zero additive" claims. While consumers may challenge such claims under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Advertising Law, or Consumer Rights Protection Law, the absence of a clear definition for "zero additives" complicates legal judgments.
In fact, according to the lasts news reports on March 24, Qianhe Flavor Industry (603027.SH) announced that the Meishan Market Supervision Administration conducted inspections on 23 batches of its "Qianhe 0" products stored in warehouses and sold in supermarkets. Test results confirmed the compliance with the national standard for brewed soy sauce (GB/T 18186) and detected no additives such as sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, sucralose, or acesulfame. The "Qianhe 0" trademark is used to distinguish the company’s zero-additive products from non-zero-additive ones. All products bearing the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark are “zero-additive products”.
What exactly is the controversy surrounding “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”)? The author deems that the essence of the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) controversy lies in the conflict between marketing strategies and consumers' right to informed choice:
(1) Distortion of Trademark Functions: The company has combined the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark with "zero additive" claims together for promotions, such as prominently displaying the "0" logo on its official website and product packaging; customer service representatives have stated that "’千禾0’(‘Qianhe 0 in Chinese’) series products contain no additives," effectively transforming the trademark into a quality commitment. While this strategy does not directly violate the Trademark Law, it may constitute "false or misleading advertising" under Article 20 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law.
(2) Consumer Cognitive Bias: Surveys indicate that many consumers interpret “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) as meaning "zero additives." The company, however, argues that "the ingredient list should be the definitive reference." Ordinary consumers lack the professional expertise to discern technical details and rely on labels directly when purchasing products, resulting in information asymmetry.
(3) Chain Reactions of Industry Malpractices: Similar issues extend beyond the soy sauce industry. Labels such as "zero sucrose" or "no preservatives" are frequently misused. For example, products labeled "zero added sucrose" may contain sugar substitutes, while soy sauce claiming "zero added preservatives" might rely on high salt content for preservation—ironically increasing health risks.
To prevent similar disputes, the author proposes addressing both legal refinement and market supervision:
(I) Clarifying the Legal Definition of "Zero Additives": It is recommended to follow the EU Food Information Regulation by defining "zero additives" as "no active addition of specific substances" and requiring companies to clearly specify the non-added substances (e.g., preservatives, sweeteners). Additionally, companies should be obligated to disclose naturally occurring components in raw materials (e.g., heavy metals) through supplementary explanations.
(II) Accelerating the Implementation of the Food Labeling Supervision and Management Measures: Expedite the enactment of new regulations to explicitly prohibit vague claims such as “zero additives” or “no additives,” unless companies provide third-party testing reports that comply with national standards. Simultaneously, strengthen penalties for non-compliant enterprises to increase the cost of violations.
(III) Enhancing Trademark Usage Supervision: For trademarks that may cause misinterpretation (e.g., those containing symbols like "0" or "无" [none]), require companies to prominently display the trademark’s true meaning on product packaging or restrict their association with quality claims. For example, mandate that the “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark be accompanied by a disclaimer such as "This trademark does not signify zero additives."
The “千禾0”(“Qianhe 0 in Chinese”) trademark controversy highlights the boundary between trademark functions and quality claims. As a trademark legal practitioner, the author contends that the legitimacy of trademark registration must strictly adhere to the review standards of the Trademark Law, and companies should avoid distorting trademarks into tools for quality guarantees. In the long term, only by legally clarifying the usage rules for labels like "zero additives" can we balance corporate innovation with consumer rights and foster the healthy development of the food industry.
