What the Xiaomi Controversy Reveals About Descriptive Marks in China
By Hansen Tao
During China’s recent Double 11 shopping season, an unexpected debate took over social media: is Xiaomi’s “Super Energy-Saving (巨省电)” really a promise of performance, or simply a product series name?
What began as consumers comparing power-saving results quickly evolved into a legal discussion about trademarks. People were surprised to learn that “Super Energy-Saving” is not an official efficiency rating, but a marketing term. The controversy soon shifted to a broader and more interesting issue: can words like “energy-saving” even function as trademarks under Chinese law?
The short answer is that in most cases they cannot. And the Xiaomi discussion has once again spotlighted a long-standing challenge in China’s home appliance industry: the legal limits on descriptive branding.
Why “Energy-Saving” is Almost Always Unregistrable
Performance-driven names have always been popular in the appliance sector. Across the market, companies use phrases that highlight efficiency, quiet operation, or advanced cooling. Some of these terms appear in advertisements, while others have even been submitted for trademark registration.
Yet most “energy-saving”-type trademark applications are rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The reason lies in the basic principles of trademark law. If a term genuinely reflects a product’s performance, the law considers it descriptive and therefore lacking the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. On the other hand, if the product does not truly perform as the term suggests, the mark becomes deceptive and violates China’s clear prohibition on misleading trademarks.
This framework was made explicit in a 2017 decision involving Haier’s application for the term “Energy-Saving Wind (省电风).” The CNIPA reasoned that if the wording accurately described performance, it could not function as a trademark. If it did not accurately describe performance, it was impermissibly misleading. Either way, it could not be registered. This reasoning has since become the standard approach in nearly all similar cases.
Why Some Older Energy-Saving Marks Were Approved
Some earlier trademarks, such as Midea’s “Energy-Saving King (省电王)”, did receive approval many years ago. However, these were registered during a period when China’s trademark examination system was less mature, and when standards for descriptive terms were not yet consistently applied.
Today, the legal landscape is very different. Modern examination practices are more rigorous, consumer-oriented, and aligned with international norms. A term directly describing product performance is now generally considered incapable of serving as a brand identifier, regardless of how long it has been used in the marketplace.
A Lesson for Brands: Naming is Both a Marketing and Legal Decision
The Xiaomi discussion reflects a deeper compliance challenge for companies operating in China. Product naming is not simply a creative marketing decision, but also a legal one. A term that appears to communicate superior performance may attract consumer attention, but can also trigger regulatory scrutiny if it implies technical claims that are not properly disclosed or certified.
Descriptive names also offer little legal protection. Even if widely used in commerce, such terms cannot reliably prevent competitors from using similar expressions. They are vulnerable to challenges under both trademark and advertising law. As China’s IP environment matures, distinctiveness remains essential, even for highly technical products. Many international companies avoid this problem by using coined words or neutral branding rather than performance-based terms, a strategy that is increasingly relevant in China.
Did Xiaomi Do Anything Wrong?
From a trademark standpoint, using “Super Energy-Saving” as a product line name is not automatically unlawful. The issue arises in how the term is presented. If its placement on packaging or online listings creates the impression of an official performance certification, regulators may view it as potentially misleading advertising, even if not a trademark violation.
This is a regulatory grey zone, and recent enforcement trends show that authorities are paying closer attention to how brands communicate performance-related information.
A registered trademark, after all, does not authorize ambiguous or exaggerated claims.
How Companies Can Reduce Legal and Reputational Risk
The Xiaomi debate serves as a timely reminder that brand owners should adopt a more holistic approach to product naming.
Avoid terms directly describing performance, especially regulated features like energy efficiency, cooling capacity, noise level, safety attributes or health benefits.
Distinctive series names help avoid legal risks and reduce consumer confusion. When a product’s performance is genuinely noteworthy, objective indicators (such as efficiency labels, technical specifications, or test reports) should be presented clearly, rather than embedded in the product name itself.
Equally important is internal coordination. Trademark strategy, advertising review, and technical verification should work together. By aligning legal, marketing, and product teams, companies can maintain regulatory compliance and strengthen consumer trust.
Conclusion: Clear Naming Builds Lasting Credibility
The controversy around “Super Energy-Saving” is not just about Xiaomi. It illustrates a broader shift in China’s trademark and consumer-protection landscape toward greater clarity, higher standards, and more responsible marketing. In a competitive market where product naming can influence consumer expectations as much as product design, companies must carefully separate what the product is from what the product is called.
A name should strengthen trust, not create confusion. As Chinese consumers become more informed and regulators more vigilant, clarity and integrity in branding will continue to be essential foundations of long-term brand value.