Neutral points can mean many different things to many people. The way you labeled the middle choice yourself reflects this uncertainty. Some reasons for choosing the neutral point from the perspective of a participant:
- I don't care to really think about my answer to this question (I just want to get paid and leave)
- I have no strong opinion on this question
- I don't understand the question, but don't want to ask (I just want to get paid and leave)
- with regards to the given aspect, the product is truly medium in quality, i.e., it neither excels nor falls short of my expectations
- with regards to the given aspect, the product has some high-quality features, and some low-quality features
Without further qualification, the people who choose the middle category can thus represent a very heterogeneous collection of attitudes / cognitions. With good labeling, some of this confusion can be avoided.
You can also present a separate "no answer" category. However, participants often interpret such a category as a signal to only provide an answer if they feel very confident in their choice. In other words, participants then tend to choose "no answer" because they feel they're not well-informed enough to make a choice that meets the questionnaire-designers quality standards.
IMHO there's no right answer to your question. You have to be very careful in labeling some or all of the presented choices, do lots of pre-testing with additional free interviews of participants on how they perceived the options. If you're really pragmatic, you just choose a standard label-set for which you can cite an article that everybody else always cites and be done with it.