In the final month of 2025, a public notice from the Shanghai Consumer Council sparked widespread attention: it conducted tests and an investigation on 15 popular domestic and international Antarctic krill oil products. Among them, a product labeled "Beijing Tong Ren Tang 99% High-Purity Antarctic Krill Oil" was found to contain 0% phospholipids. Subsequently, Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Group) Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries issued multiple statements to clarify the situation, but the damage to its brand image from the "Antarctic krill oil incident" appears irreversible. Instantly, "Tong Ren Tang" became embroiled in a white-labeling controversy. In recent days, searches and visits were conducted both online and offline. Searching online for "Tong Ren Tang" Antarctic krill oil products revealed a dizzying array of items bearing labels such as Beijing Tong Ren Tang Cosmetics Co., Ltd., Tong Ren Tang Health Tong Le, Nanjing Tong Ren Pharmaceutical Group, Nanjing Tong Ren Tang, and Nanjing Tong Ren Tang Lv Jin Jia Yuan, among others. Offline, as the incident rapidly escalated, many stores that once hung the "Tong Ren Tang" signboard had quietly changed their names; yet, according to staff, these products still maintained intricate connections to the "Tong Ren Tang" brand. Within China, the name "Tong Ren Tang" is virtually a household name. However, if one were to scrutinize exactly how many entities using "Tong Ren Tang" operate in the market, most consumers would likely be unable to provide a clear answer. Research indicates that among the numerous "Tong Ren Tang" related brands in the market, only three—based in Beijing, Tianjin, and Nanjing—possess deep historical roots and have continued to develop normally. The Tong Ren Tang brand was founded in 1669 (the eighth year of the Kangxi Emperor's reign in the Qing Dynasty) by Yue Xianyang in Beijing, and began supplying medicines to the Qing imperial court in 1723. Later, due to financial difficulties, the head of Beijing Tong Ren Tang, Yue Pingquan, sought external investment. Zhang Yitang, a son-in-law of the Yue family, took a stake and was responsible for managing operations and pharmaceutical production. After Yue Pingquan regained full operational control of Beijing Tong Ren Tang, Zhang Yitang redeemed his shares and established "Zhang's Old Pharmacy" in Tianjin, having previously served as Beijing Tong Ren Tang's agent there. In 1852, Zhang Yitang renamed his pharmacy "Tianjin Tong Ren Tang" without authorization, leading to a lawsuit from Beijing Tong Ren Tang which he lost. The origins of Nanjing Tong Ren Tang can be traced back to the 1920s. In 1926, Yue Duzhou, the 13th-generation direct descendant of the Yue family, was sent south by the family to establish the Peking Tong Ren Tang Capital Yue Family Old Shop Nanjing Branch, which officially opened in 1929. Initially, its funds and goods were allocated by Beijing Tong Ren Tang, staff were dispatched from Beijing, and all profits were remitted to Beijing Tong Ren Tang. Through inheritance and accumulation, the "Tong Ren Tang" name is now primarily used by three entities: China Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group), Tianjin Tong Ren Tang Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianjin Tong Ren Tang), and Nanjing Tong Ren Tang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Tong Ren Tang). Although sharing a common origin, the three have become competitors since their separation, frequently engaging in trademark disputes and unfair competition litigation. In June 2021, when Tianjin Tong Ren Tang was preparing for an IPO, Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group sued it for trademark infringement and unfair competition, demanding a cessation of the infringement. In 2024, Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group also filed a lawsuit against Nanjing Tong Ren Tang, accusing it of trademark infringement, misleading false advertising, and other unfair competition practices, and claiming damages. However, the brand dispute may be nearing its end. According to a report on December 19, 2024, the controlling shareholder of the listed company Beijing Tong Ren Tang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Tong Ren Tang), Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group, obtained a controlling 60% stake in Tianjin Tong Ren Tang, committing to resolve competition issues between the two within five years. On November 24, 2025, a State Administration for Market Regulation announcement indicated that Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group planned to solely hold a 60% equity stake in Tianjin Tong Ren Tang through a distribution-in-kind arrangement with Hangzhou Xinkang Management Consulting Partnership (Limited Partnership). The transaction where Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group acquired shares in Tianjin Tong Ren Tang has also sparked market speculation about a potential unification of the three "Tong Ren Tang" entities. If brand reintegration can be achieved, it would benefit the preservation of the "Tong Ren Tang" brand value, although the ultimate outcome will require time to assess. Notably, the prior "Antarctic krill oil incident" had already exposed weaknesses in Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group's management of its branches and subsidiaries. Although from a corporate (group) perspective, "Tong Ren Tang" shows a trend towards consolidation, from the viewpoint of branches, subsidiaries, partner companies, and sales channels, consumers still struggle to distinguish the authenticity of the myriad "Tong Ren Tang" products available. Taking Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group alone as an example, its published list of compliant online sales stores is divided into five categories: official flagship stores, health supplement flagship stores/category flagship stores, large pharmacy flagship stores/online pharmacies, exclusive sales/specialty stores, and cross-border stores, totaling 59 stores. On one major e-commerce platform, there are 21 sales stores recognized by Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group. A search on e-commerce platforms for over a dozen stores containing "Tong Ren Tang" in their names revealed that, perhaps due to platform compliance requirements, these stores were all compliant. However, examining individual products reveals a different picture: products labeled with "Tong Ren Tang" sold on these platforms often feature a bewildering variety of packaging and logos, with names containing various suffixes and parentheses, making it difficult for consumers to verify authenticity. Online commentary such as "Everything can be white-labeled" and the "Tong Ren Tang Universe" is both vivid and biting in its critique. This difficulty in distinguishing real from fake is also evident offline. On the morning of December 25th, following a map navigation, a visit was made to a traditional Chinese medicine hall in Jinan's Huaiyin District, Rizhao Road, previously listed under the name "Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd." Upon arrival, it was found that the store had been renamed "XX Old Pharmacy." When asked if this was still "Tong Ren Tang," a staff member replied affirmatively. It was noted that the store primarily stocked Beijing Tong Ren Tang Angong Niuhuang Wan products and also offered services like acupuncture and massage. Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. is precisely the grandchild company of Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group that was involved in the "Antarctic krill oil controversy." A similar situation was discovered in Xi'an. A store marked as "Beijing Tong Ren Tang" on mapping software and local lifestyle websites had also undergone a name change. On December 26th, a visit was made to this store named "XX Health City" on Xi'an's Chang'an South Road. Not long before, the sign hanging outside had read "Beijing Tong Ren Tang." A staff member stated, "We are still Tong Ren Tang." When asked why the sign was changed, the employee explained, "If you use that name [Tong Ren Tang], they sue you. Our Chinese patent medicines and herbal medicines are still from Tong Ren Tang; it's essentially a franchise store." Although the exterior signage no longer displayed "Tong Ren Tang," the interior of the shop contained numerous plaques and logos bearing the name, including "Beijing Tong Ren Tang Medicinal Materials and Ginseng Fine Drugstore," "Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Bozhou) Decoction Pieces Company Product Counter," and "Beijing Tong Ren Tang Health Pharmaceutical." Searching for this store on consumer review websites revealed a comment from one consumer stating: "This is a counterfeit Tong Ren Tang. Please be careful not to be fooled! The medicines and packaging all bear the logo of XX Tang, yet they insist their prices are over twice as high as those in tertiary hospitals due to superior ingredients." In response to this review, the merchant replied: "Our TCM clinic is XX Tang, but the Chinese pharmacy section is Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Anguo) Fine Drugstore. The signage and credentials are clearly marked. The products and medicines are all from Tong Ren Tang and are fully authorized." Verification with Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group revealed that its subordinate enterprises containing "Anguo" in their names are Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Anguo) Chinese Medicinal Materials Processing Co., Ltd. and Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Anguo) Chinese Decoction Pieces Co., Ltd. However, the list of retail terminals recognized by Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group did not include this "XX Health City." Regarding the problems exposed by the "Antarctic krill oil controversy" and the chaotic market situation involving "Tong Ren Tang," Tang Jiansheng, Deputy Secretary-General of the Shanghai Consumer Council, previously explained the operational model of the involved company to the media: "The involved company essentially created a very 'sophisticated' structural design. On one hand, it positions itself as a distributor, allowing it to easily 'pass the buck' if counterfeit activities are discovered. On the other hand, many misleading practices in the sales process are carried out by downstream distributors and sub-distributors, enabling the company to claim ignorance if problems arise." According to media reports, market promotion personnel have claimed that Beijing Tong Ren Tang primarily operates on an authorized distributor model. Under this model, distributors specify product requirements, and the brand owner is responsible for selecting suitable factories for sampling and quoting. Once an agreement is reached, production and sales proceed. One market promoter showed multiple layers of authorization documents from Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., stating that the "authorized party is our company's legitimate distributor, authorized to legally distribute our company's 'XX' brand related products on online e-commerce platforms, and to conduct promotion, sales, operations, and after-sales service for these products on the platforms." However, in recent years, Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group has repeatedly issued statements on its official website clarifying that without its written authorization, no unit or individual may use the "Tong Ren Tang" or "Beijing Tong Ren Tang" names, or any other logos containing the Chinese characters, foreign language terms, pinyin (including abbreviations), or graphics of "Tong Ren Tang." Does the market contain white-labeled "Tong Ren Tang" products? Amidst the conflicting claims from various parties, this seems to have become an unresolved case. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the "Tong Ren Tang" brand value is being eroded by recurring scandals like the "Antarctic krill oil incident." White-label production can, to some extent, help a company capture market share while generating substantial licensing fees. However, if the company subsequently fails in management and quality control, it can easily face severe backlash. In 2008, Nanjiren discontinued its own production lines and fully transitioned to a brand licensing model. Suddenly, a wide variety of Nanjiren-branded products flooded the market. According to data from a business media outlet, in 2018, Nanjiren set a record by appearing on national quality inspection and consumer association blacklists 14 times; by 2023, complaints against Nanjiren on the Hei Mao platform exceeded 3,000. Subsequently, Nanjiren decided to gradually reclaim its brand usage rights and shift towards in-house research, development, and sales. Returning to "Tong Ren Tang," the weight of its brand value is self-evident. In 2006, Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group, Tianjin Tong Ren Tang, and Nanjing Tong Ren Tang were all recognized among the first batch of national "China Time-Honored Brands." According to the "Measures for the Demonstration and Creation of China Time-Honored Brands," a China Time-Honored Brand refers to a brand (name, trademark, etc.) with profound historical heritage, distinct cultural characteristics, unique craftsmanship and technology, excellent design and manufacturing, high-quality products and services, efficient marketing channels, and broad social recognition. The brand of a China Time-Honored Brand belongs to the enterprise, but it cannot be denied that the collective historical memory embodied by these brands is a shared possession of the public. The continuous erosion of the "Tong Ren Tang" brand value is not only a blow to the enterprise but also an injury to this shared collective memory. In 2023, the Ministry of Commerce, in conjunction with relevant departments, announced the results of a review of China Time-Honored Brands: 55 brands were removed from the list, and 73 brands were given a six-month deadline for rectification. The primary reasons for these "de-listings" were long-term poor management, bankruptcy, deregistration, closure, or the loss of ownership or usage rights of the Time-Honored Brand trademark. Many consumers expressed regret for the delisted brands, but even more voiced their support. Survival of the fittest is an inevitable rule of market competition; Time-Honored Brands cannot simply live off their past glory, or "old capital." Returning to the "Antarctic krill oil incident," although Beijing Tong Ren Tang Group stated that its brand authorization to Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. had expired in 2021, until the incident occurred, the authorization of the "Tong Ren Tang" brand was effectively in a state of disarray—denied by the group but practically continued by the subsidiary. With brand management in chaos and quality control becoming an empty promise, a multitude of white-labeled products flowed into the market relying on the "Tong Ren Tang" brand endorsement. Is this not, in essence, also living off the "old capital" of "Tong Ren Tang"?
Comments