A Chinese company has started expanding its number of outlets in north China. The English name of the stores is Natural Mill, while the Chinese characters — 無印良品 — are identical to those used by the Japanese lifestyle products brand Muji.
Unfortunately for Muji, it has no legal recourse.
In 2016, Natural Mill, whose parent company is Beijing Cottonfield Textile Corp, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Muji’s Japanese parent company, Ryohin Keikaku Co, Ltd and its Chinese-registered company Muji (Shanghai) Commerce Corp.
Note that the plaintiff in this case was Natural Mill, the company that is knocking off the Muji trademark, while the defendant is poor old Muji.
Last year, on Christmas day, a Beijing court handed down its verdict, ruling that the plaintiff had the right to use the trademark and should be accorded due legal protections.
As a result, all of the products, product packaging and promotional literature for products sold by the defendant — including bathroom towels, face towels, duvet covers, pillowcases and bathroom accessories using the trademark or proximate versions thereof, such as 無印良品, Muji無印良品 and 無印良品Muji, would be considered to infringe the registered trademark and the defendant should accordingly cease all use of them.
Beijing Cottonfield Textile was founded in 1998; Japan’s Ryohin Keikaku was established in 1980. Unfortunately, Beijing Cottonfield Textile registered the trademark in China before the Japanese company did.
Under the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the legal guarantees accorded to the knockoff trumped the rights of the original — foreign — brand and the latter was also required to pay compensation to the tune of 626,000 yuan (US$90,190 at the current exchange rate).
This, one may presume, is an example of rule of law with Chinese characteristics.
Not long ago, US President Donald Trump and US Vice President Mike Pence, on separate occasions, accused China of exploiting its market advantage to plunder and plagiarize the intellectual property rights of US companies operating in China.
However, the Muji trademark infringement case takes the whole thing to a new level. It is like the mistress doing away with the wife and then asking the wife to pay compensation.
A few years ago, when I was riding on a bus in Beijing, I saw an advertisement for Beijing Chang Gong Memorial Hospital (北京長庚醫院). The logo, just like the characters in its name, were identical to Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taipei, and it advertised that it specialized in treating male afflictions.
It is perfectly possible to suppose that, if the Taipei Chang Gung Memorial Hospital decided to open a branch in Beijing, it would be faced with the question of whether it can use its own name, or whether it could continue using its trademark.
The problem is not about scale; it is about the fact that it is Taiwanese, with the wrong approach to the “united front.”
Yu Kung is a businessman.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS