Image from the official WeChat account of 无印良品 MUJI

Background：

After a 20-year legal battle, MUJI’s parent company Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. ultimately lost its claim to the "无印良品" trademark in China for goods in Class 24. This case exemplifies an international brand losing a core category due to trademark strategy oversights and underscores the strict application of "territoriality" and "first-to-file" principles. It cautions multinational enterprises to proactively secure comprehensive category registrations to avoid rights forfeiture due to strategic missteps. 

In 1999, when Japan's Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. registered the "无印良品" trademark in China but failed to cover Class 24. In April 2000, Hainan Nanhua Industrial Co., Ltd. preemptively registered the Chinese trademark in this class (later transferred to Beijing Miantian Textile Co., Ltd.). Although Ryohin Keikaku filed oppositions and pursued other legal avenues to reclaim the trademark starting in 2001, it failed to prove actual use or acquired distinctiveness for Class 24 goods in mainland China prior to 2000. Meanwhile, it was involved in lawsuits from Miantian for using the "无印良品" trademark. Recently, as the Supreme People's Court finally dismissed its retrial application, bringing the dispute to a definitive end. 

On June 23, 2025, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued a retrial ruling in the administrative litigation case regarding the invalidation declaration of the trademark right for the Class 24 "无印良品" trademark (Registration No. 1561046). The court dismissed the retrial application filed by Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. and announced that the registration of the "无印良品" trademark would be maintained. 

The trademark dispute over the registration of the "无印良品" trademark for Class 24 goods in China has been a protracted battle spanning over two decades, and this ruling by the SPC signifies that Beijing MianTian Textile Co., Ltd., a Chinese enterprise, has emerged victorious in this long-standing conflict.

Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. is the parent company of the well-known Japanese general merchandise brand "無印良品MUJI." Its products emphasize simplicity, environmental protection, with a people-oriented approach and no brand logos on packaging or product designs. The product range extends from pencils, notebooks, and food to basic kitchen utensils. It has also ventured into industries such as housing construction, flower shops, and coffee shops.

Beijing MianTian Textile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Miantian Company) was established on July 27, 2000, with a business scope covering the sales of knitted textiles, clothing design, exhibition organization, and other fields. It owns multiple brands, including "棉田cottonfield" and "Natural Mill 无印工坊," with products encompassing home apparel, functional bedding, and eco-friendly home textiles. In 2004, MianTian Company acquired the "无印良品" trademark from Hainan Nanhua Industrial and Trade Co., Ltd.

In 1999, Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. applied to the former Trademark Office under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark Office") for the registration of the "无印良品" trademark in Class 25, covering goods such as "shorts, T-shirts, shirts, ankle socks, and clothing." However, it had omitted registration of the trademark in Class 24, which includes "bedding and textiles." The following year, in 2000, Hainan Nanhua Industrial and Trade Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Trademark Office for the registration of the "无印良品" text trademark in Class 24. In April 2001, the Trademark Office made a preliminary approval and officially published the application, designating the use of the "无印良品" trademark (Registration No. 1561046) for Class 24 goods, including "cotton fabrics, towels, towel quilts, bath towels, pillow towels, floor towels, bed sheets, pillowcases, quilts, quilt covers, mattress pads, and cushion covers." However, in 2001, Japanese MUJI filed an opposition against Hainan Nanhua's "无印良品" trademark. 

Subsequently in 2004, Hainan Nanhua Industrial and Trade Co., Ltd. transferred the trademark to MianTian Company. After the Trademark Office ruled to approve the registration of the trademark by MianTian Company, Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. filed multiple review applications, but the final outcome confirmed the approval of MianTian Company's trademark registration.

The litigation between the two parties continued until 2012 when the Supreme People's Court made a final judgment, stating that the evidence provided by Ryohin Keikaku could only prove the publicity and use of its "无印良品" trademark in Japan, Hong Kong, China, and other regions before April 6, 2000, as well as its reputation in those areas, but the actual use and acquisition of certain influence of the disputed trademark in mainland China on Class 24 such as towels could not be proven. Therefore, the court upheld the second-instance judgment. Since then, after eight procedures and nine cases, spanning a legal battle of 12 years, until June 2025, the Supreme People's Court once again dismissed the application of Ryohin Keikaku and maintained the valid and legal registration status of MianTian Company's "无印良品" trademark.

In the recent administrative ruling made by the SPC, it responded to various issues raised by Ryohin Keikaku in its retrial application. First, Ryohin Keikaku alleged that the application for the disputed trademark constituted "obtaining trademark registration by deception or other improper means." It argued that MianTian Company had engaged in bulk hoarding and large-scale pre-emptive registration of trademarks, continuously counterfeiting not only Ryohin Keikaku's trademarks and corporate names but also those of other well-known brands. MianTian Company's unsuccessful attempt to transfer the disputed trademark to Ryohin Keikaku at a high price was sufficient evidence of its malice. Additionally, previous judgments had determined that MianTian Company constituted "pre-emptive registration by improper means." Therefore, it should be concluded that the application for the disputed trademark was made with malice and impropriety. 

Secondly, Ryohin Keikaku also accused the application for the disputed trademark of constituting a violation of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, which prohibits "the pre-emptive registration by improper means of a trademark that has been used by others and has gained certain influence." In its retrial application, Ryohin Keikaku still maintained that its "無印良品" mark constituted a prior-used trademark with certain influence, arguing that the second-instance judgment incorrectly determined that original equipment manufacturing (OEM) did not constitute trademark use, which contradicted previous precedents. The disputed trademark was identical to Ryohin Keikaku's prior-used trademark on the same or similar goods. Considering Ryohin Keikaku's prior use, MianTian Company, as a competitor in the same industry, should have been aware of Ryohin Keikaku's prior-used and influential "無印良品" trademark, making its application for the disputed trademark improper. Given MianTian Company's malice, this case should not impose excessively high requirements on the "certain influence" of the prior-used trademark.

The above two images display the logos of "无印工坊" under Beijing Miantian Textile Co., Ltd., sourced from the WeChat official account "無印良品Natural Mill生活馆".

This image shows the logo of Japanese brand "無印良品" under its parent company Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd., sourced from the official WeChat account "无印良品MUJI".

The SPC provided detailed responses to these two issues. Regarding the allegation of "obtaining trademark registration by deception or other improper means," the Supreme People's Court held that in this case, the application date for the disputed trademark was April 6, 2000. Most of the evidence regarding MianTian Company's trademark registration and use submitted by Ryohin Keikaku during the retrial review stage consisted of materials dated after the application date for the disputed trademark, and the other judgments submitted involved different trademarks and different application registration dates, so the evidence provided by Ryohin Keikaku could not prove that before the application date for the disputed trademark, MianTian Company had engaged in conduct such as disrupting the trademark registration order, damaging public interests, improperly occupying public resources, or seeking improper benefits by means other than deception.

As for the allegation that the application for the disputed trademark might be involved with a violation of Article 32 of the Trademark Law regarding "the pre-emptive registration by improper means of a trademark that has been used by others and has gained certain influence," the SPC held that in this case, most of the publicity and use evidence submitted by Ryohin Keikaku was either generated overseas or dated after the application date for the disputed trademark. There was insufficient evidence to prove that before the application date for the disputed trademark, the goods bearing Ryohin Keikaku's claimed "無印良品" mark had entered mainland China. The newspaper and periodical publicity materials submitted by Ryohin Keikaku during the retrial review stage were mostly reports on the "無印良品" brand and did not specifically refer to the goods, such as "cotton textiles," for which the disputed trademark was approved for use. Therefore, its claim that the "無印良品" trademark had been used and had gained certain influence on Class 24 goods such as "cotton textiles" lacked factual basis.

Regarding Ryohin Keikaku's claim that it had commissioned Chinese enterprises to produce and process "無印良品" brand bed sheets, quilt covers, and other goods before the application date for the disputed trademark, which constituted prior use with certain influence, the SPC held that even if Ryohin Keikaku had commissioned enterprises in mainland China to process "無印良品" brand products, since all these processed products were exported and not sold in mainland China, they could not have gained certain influence.