The “MUJI” trademark dispute has been a 24-year-long transnational intellectual property (IP) battle between Japan’s Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. (“Ryohin Keikaku”) and Beijing Cottonfield Textile Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Cottonfield”). In June 2025, the Supreme People's Court of China upheld the legality of Beijing Cottonfield’s registration of the “无印良品” trademark under Class 24, marking another significant milestone in this protracted legal saga. This article explores the background, legal issues, and rulings of the case, along with strategic brand protection insights—particularly through the lens of services offered by the Kangxin IP Platform.

Case Background

Origin of the Trademark and Initial Dispute

The trademark battle over “无印良品” began in 2000, when Hainan Nanhua Industrial and Trade Co. filed for registration of the trademark in Class 24 (Reg. No. 1561046), covering goods such as towels, cotton fabrics, and bed linens. This trademark was transferred to Beijing Cottonfield in 2004. At the time, Ryohin Keikaku had already operated under the “無印良品” (MUJI) brand in Japan and Hong Kong for years—having entered Hong Kong in 1991 and Mainland China in 2005. However, the company failed to secure trademark registration in Class 24 in China before its market entry, giving Beijing Cottonfield the first-mover advantage and triggering a decades-long dispute.

Timeline of Legal Confrontation

Since 2001, Ryohin Keikaku has launched multiple rounds of administrative and legal challenges against the Class 24 trademark, including oppositions, reviews, and lawsuits, citing bad-faith registration and non-use. However, in the 2012 Supreme Court ruling (Case No. (2012) 行提字第2号), the court found insufficient evidence that Ryohin Keikaku had used the trademark with sufficient market impact in Class 24 in China prior to April 6, 2000. As a result, Beijing Cottonfield retained its trademark rights.

In a parallel counterattack, Beijing Cottonfield sought to cancel Ryohin Keikaku’s marks in other classes (e.g., Classes 35 and 36) on grounds of non-use. These efforts only partially succeeded, as Ryohin Keikaku maintained key rights in Class 35 and others. Both parties also initiated a series of lawsuits involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, store design similarities, and accusations of business defamation—each with mixed outcomes.

Commercial Landscape and Market Impact

Ryohin Keikaku currently operates over 410 stores across 81 Chinese cities under the “MUJI無印良品” name, offering clothing, furniture, and household goods. Meanwhile, Beijing Cottonfield focuses on home textiles, with more than 300 online stores and over 200 physical outlets. As of 2024, its brand “无印良品 Natural Mill” has achieved a market size of RMB 4 billion. The highly similar store layout and branding between the two entities have led to frequent consumer confusion.

Legal Focus and Core Issues

Territoriality and First-to-File Principle

China’s Trademark Law operates under the principles of territoriality and first-to-file. Beijing Cottonfield legally registered the Class 24 “无印良品” trademark in 2000, ahead of Ryohin Keikaku’s official entry into Mainland China. Although Ryohin Keikaku accused Beijing Cottonfield of bad-faith registration, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove prior use and reputation of the trademark in China at the relevant time. This case illustrates the critical importance of early trademark filing in key jurisdictions—particularly for multinational brands.

Unfair Competition and Consumer Confusion

In 2022, the Jiangsu High People's Court (Case No. (2022) 苏民终356号) ruled that Beijing Cottonfield's use of “无印良品” signage and branding exploited the goodwill of Ryohin Keikaku, amounting to unfair competition. The court ordered rebranding and awarded RMB 500,000 in damages. Conversely, Ryohin Keikaku was also found to have infringed Beijing Cottonfield’s rights by using “無印良品” in Class 24, resulting in a RMB 620,000 fine and a mandatory public statement. These cases underscore the necessity of consistent and lawful trademark usage to prevent consumer confusion.

Legal Boundaries of Commercial Defamation

In 2021, Beijing Cottonfield sued Ryohin Keikaku for commercial defamation, arguing that statements labeling Beijing Cottonfield as a “trademark squatter” misled the public. The first-instance court ordered a compensation of RMB 400,000, later reduced to RMB 200,000 on appeal. This ruling highlights the importance of corporate caution when issuing public statements that could harm another party’s reputation and risk violating unfair competition laws.

Final Ruling and Current Status

On June 23, 2025, the Supreme People's Court dismissed Ryohin Keikaku’s retrial petition (Case No. (2024) 最高法行申7358号), reaffirming the legitimacy of Beijing Cottonfield’s Class 24 registration. The status quo now stands as follows: Beijing Cottonfield holds exclusive rights in Class 24, while Ryohin Keikaku retains extensive trademark rights in Classes 16, 20, 21, 35, and others. Both entities coexist in the market, yet ongoing brand similarity continues to create confusion and may lead to future litigation.

Lessons for Businesses

1. Proactive Global Trademark Strategy

Ryohin Keikaku’s failure stemmed from its delayed trademark filing in China. Businesses should secure trademark rights across key jurisdictions and core product classes prior to market entry. Comprehensive searches via official trademark databases or third-party agents are essential to mitigate registration risks.

2. Standardized and Lawful Trademark Usage

Both companies faced litigation due to improper use of brand names and logos. Companies should strictly use trademarks within their approved scope and clearly differentiate brand sources using distinct identifiers (e.g., “MUJI” vs. “Natural Mill”). MUJI’s minimalist packaging design can also serve as a legal risk mitigation strategy.

3. Enhanced Consumer Protection Practices

Enterprises have a legal and ethical duty to avoid misleading consumers. Clearly labeled packaging, signage, and product descriptions are essential to uphold consumer rights and avoid litigation.

4. Avoiding Malicious Litigation and Reputational Risks

Both parties—Beijing Cottonfield’s alleged “trademark hoarding” and Ryohin Keikaku’s defamatory statements—were criticized. Companies must adhere to the principle of good faith and avoid using litigation or public messaging to attack competitors improperly. Tools like the Kangxin IP Platform can help companies build IP monitoring systems to detect potential infringement early and respond strategically.

Kangxin IP Platform’s Role in Trademark Protection

The Kangxin IP Platform provides end-to-end IP protection services, including trademark registration, monitoring, enforcement, litigation, and global branding strategies across 200+ countries. In cross-border trademark disputes like the MUJI case, Kangxin offers:

Global Trademark Registration: Covering core and extended classes to prevent squatting risks.

Infringement Monitoring: Real-time tracking of similar trademarks and usage to enable swift responses.

Legal Dispute Resolution: Expert legal representation for oppositions, cancellations, and infringement cases.

Strategic Brand Planning: Customized brand strategies that enhance differentiation and market competitiveness.

Conclusion

The MUJI trademark dispute is more than a legal saga—it is a landmark in the evolution of IP protection among Chinese private enterprises. Beijing Cottonfield’s early registration, active defense, and persistent litigation ultimately secured its dominance in Class 24, underscoring the importance of timely and compliant trademark strategies. Businesses must learn from this case: proactively register trademarks, enforce usage standards, protect consumers, and rely on professional IP platforms like Kangxin to build resilient global IP portfolios. In the modern competitive landscape, trademarks are core corporate assets, and strategic brand protection is essential to long-term success.