The “trademark war” between Beijing Muji and Japan’s Muji has ended another round.
According to the Beijing Court Trial Information Network, on July 13, the Beijing Higher People’s Court rejected Beijing Muji’s retrial application for a trademark infringement dispute with Japan’s Muji .
This dispute starts with Japan’s Muji “losing its trademark” in China.
MUJI “lost” its trademark in China
“MUJI” is a grocery brand founded in Japan in 1980. It has many products. As early as 1999, MUJI’s parent company, MUJI Co., Ltd. China has applied for multiple categories of “MUJI” trademarks, but the protection categories are incomplete, allowing others to take advantage of the loopholes.
Among them, the trademark Class 24 “cotton fabrics, towels, quilts, sheets, bedspreads, quilt covers” was registered by others in 2000 and was later transferred to Beijing Miantian Textile Co., Ltd.
At this time, Japanese MUJI products had not yet entered China, and China already had the name “MUJI”. It is conceivable that the subsequent trademark litigation will not be smooth!
In November 2019, Japan’s Muji parent company Liangpin Project Co., Ltd. and its Chinese subsidiary Muji Shanghai Company were involved in the “Muji” dispute with Beijing Muji. “Lost in a trademark infringement dispute. This means that when Japanese MUJI makes hangtags for cloths, towels, sheets and other products, it must remove “MUJI” from “MUJI MUJI” and only use “MUJI”.
Also in 2019, Beijing Muji and its parent company Miantian Company sued Muji Shanghai Company to the court, arguing that its store signs and product packaging bags, transactions The document used the same logo as its “MUJI” registered trademark, which constituted infringement of its registered Class 24 “quilts, towels” and other “MUJI” trademarks. The defendant was required to stop the infringement and issue a statement to eliminate it. Impact, and compensation for losses of 3 million yuan.
Beijing Muji lost the lawsuit
According to the Beijing Chaoyang People’s Court In the first-instance judgment, the court held that the use of the involved trademark “MUJI” on store signboards, shopping receipts and packaging bags by Muji Shanghai Company and Muji Chaoyang Third Branch was a trademark use behavior in the process of sales and services. , which is not identical or similar to the goods approved for use by the trademark involved, does not constitute an infringement of the exclusive rights of the trademark involved, and the litigation claims of Beijing Muji and Cotton Field Company were rejected.
After that, Beijing Muji once again appealed and requested a second instance. After the second instance upheld the original verdict of the first instance, it applied for a retrial. The latest result of the aforementioned judgment was that his request for retrial was rejected.
According to relevant judgment documents, the Beijing Higher People’s Court held that based on the facts ascertained by the first and second instance courts, the allegedly infringing products “towels” and “thin quilts” were not used on The trademark involved in the case “MUJI” uses the trademark “MUJI” legally registered by the parent company of MUJI Shanghai Company. It can be seen that MUJI Shanghai Company and MUJI Chaoyang Third Branch have in fact “did Reasonable avoidance of the trademark rights involved.”
The Beijing Higher People’s Court ultimately rejected Beijing Muji’s retrial application.
However, in fact, until today, Japan’s MUJI still cannot use “no” on cloths, towels, bed sheets and other products. “Yinliangpin” trademark.
The initial trademark layout of Japan’s Muji was insufficient, and then the 24th category of key trademarks was rushed to register, leaving the brand passive. The trademark dilemma experienced by MUJI is also a warning to us: intellectual property protection is a global trend, and companies that do not pay attention to trademark protection may end up making wedding dresses for others! Enterprises must make a good trademark layout in a timely manner, not only protecting core trademarks, but also making a comprehensive layout of related fields, similar goods/services, and international trademarks.
According to Jiemian News, Japan’s Muji China stated that it will not give up the opportunity to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests. In addition to the relevant lawsuits that are already being responded to, its parent company Ryoken Project also filed several related civil lawsuits and made administrative reports against the companies suspected of infringement and their franchise stores. </p
