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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS