The relationship between Beijing MUJI and Japan MUJI, from its birth in February 1980 to now, has changed from a private brand of food and daily necessities to a global retail benchmark enterprise, from Japan to the world, and the relationship between Beijing MUJI and Japan MUJI.
The relationship between Beijing Muji and Japan Muji 1 There is no relationship between Beijing Muji and Japan Muji, but careful people may find that Beijing Muji imitates Japan Muji, but it is just a registered trademark of Muji.
1, the whole story:
Recently, Japan Muji issued a statement saying that it would eliminate the infringing manufacturers of Japan Muji in the market. In this statement, Japan used the word "squatting" to mean good products. Muji in Beijing thought that Japanese Muji was mapping that they were doing commercial slander, so they sued Japanese Muji again. Maybe many friends can't tell which of these two muji products is true. In fact, Japanese Muji is the authentic Muji, but because it didn't apply for a trademark in Chinese mainland, it was registered by a Shanghai merchant. After the Shanghai businessman registered the trademark of MUJI, no matter how heavy the publicity was, his shop name or interior decoration were imitating Japanese MUJI, which was unspeakable. I have tried to protect my rights and interests through legal means before. Because the registered trademark of Beijing Muji is completely reasonable and legal, it is said that Jia Wei lost the case last time and had to pay 650,000 yuan. This time, Beijing MUJI filed a lawsuit with the Japanese MUJI court, but no trial was held. The incident is still under observation.
2. Why is Muji popular?
So, how did good products become popular? This is because MUJI pays more attention to quality than trademark. One of the reasons why Muji is extremely popular in Japan is that its price is relatively low and it is a favorite brand of Japanese people. At such a low price, Muji can also ensure high quality and extremely comfortable texture, so it is extremely popular in Japan. After Muji entered the China market, it was deeply needed by the middle class in China and gradually became a necessity for the middle class. Some young artists in China even have them all year round.
3. Why did MUJI decline?
However, in recent years, unscrupulous products have begun to step off the altar in China. The main reason is that the quality of Muji has been declining year by year, and the food of Muji has been detected to contain hereditary carcinogens, which has cast a layer of dust on the brand of Muji. Moreover, in recent years, there have been many similar Muji products in China, such as famous and famous products, domestic products such as Netease and YEATION, whose quality is similar, but the price is less than that. Half of Muji has also taken away many markets, which is the reason for the decline of Muji.
The relationship between Beijing MUJI and Japan MUJI 2 Since the birth of 1980 in February, MUJI has made great strides from a private brand that mainly promotes food and daily necessities, and has become a benchmark enterprise in the global retail industry, moving from Japan to the world and winning the recognition of global consumers. However, Muji ran into a home textile shop with the same brand as Muji in Beijing after laying out the China market for many years, and thus staged a trademark war.
A year ago, Beijing Miantian Textile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Miantian Company") registered a Muji trademark on the 24th category of textiles, bedding and other commodities, which caused the public opinion that Japanese Muji v. China Muji lost the case. However, when the time came to 20 19, the dispute over the trademark of "MUJI" was not settled, but the situation became more complicated.
20 19, 1 1 In June, 2006, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a civil judgment of second instance, and found that the Japanese Muji's business entity, the "Good Product Plan of Japan Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as the "Good Product Plan") and its Shanghai company infringed the trademark rights of Miantian Company. The court held that the trademarks of "Muji/Muji", "Muji" and "Muji" used by Japanese Muji on bath towels, face towels, quilt covers, pillowcases and other commodities constitute similar trademarks to those of Miantian Company No.7494239..
This also brought the trademark dispute between the two companies into public view again, and the mystery behind the "Muji" trademark gradually surfaced.
As early as 1980, the brand Muji was founded by designer Kazuo Tanaka. In order to protect the trademark from fraudulent use, Muji, which is famous as "Muji", first applied for trademark registration in Japan. Since 1999, the Good Products Program has successively applied to the Chinese Trademark Office to register the "Muji" trademarks of various goods and services, and all of them have been approved for registration.
However, the trademark number of "Muji" applied for registration by Hainan Nanhua Industrial Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Nanhua Company") is Category 24 156 1046 (cotton goods, towels, sheets, quilts, etc.). ) in April 2000 and July 2004. 20 1 1, Miantian Company established its subsidiary "Beijing Muji Investment Co., Ltd." with the name "Muji".
Unexpectedly, it is the 24th class trademark that has caused a series of trademark disputes between the two companies 18.
April 26th, 2006, 5438+0 is an important day. This day is the first World Intellectual Property Day established by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Coincidentally, it was also on this day that the "Muji" trademark war between the two companies officially started. On the same day, Good Product Plan raised an objection to the Trademark Office against the trademark number. 156 1046 "Muji".
However, the objection was unsuccessful this time-the trademark was approved for registration in the objection ruling of the Trademark Office in June 5438+ 10, 2004 and the objection review ruling of the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in March 2009. The good product project then filed an administrative lawsuit with the court. After the first trial and the second trial, the court upheld the ruling, and then the Supreme People's Court remanded the case.
In the judgment of 20 12, the Supreme People's Court believed that the evidence provided by the good product plan could only prove the propaganda and use of its "Muji" trademark in Japan, China and Hongkong before the application date of the challenged trademark, but could not prove the fact that the "Muji" trademark was actually used on the 24th category towels and other commodities in Chinese mainland, so the final judgment upheld the original judgment.
However, the other side of the game seems to be "justified". After all, it is an indisputable fact that Miantian Company first registered the 24th category of "Muji" trademark.
In this regard, Professor Liu Chuntian, Dean of Intellectual Property College of China Renmin University, pointed out that it is necessary to avoid mechanical understanding of the regional characteristics of intellectual property. "Regionality should not be a tool for people with improper intentions to evade the law and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others." He said.
In fact, many scholars now believe that although the technical conditions make the trademark right regional, with the continuous maturity of technologies such as the Internet, the global information dissemination has overcome the regional restrictions, so we should grasp the economic and legal roots and understand it with the thinking of market economy and globalization.
Xiao Jiangping, director of Peking University Competition Law Research Center, believes that the anti-unfair competition law "has a certain influence" on commodity names, which can also be analyzed from the aspects of time, region and business volume. "Sales data of Chinese mainland, China, Hongkong and Japan, including sales volume, sales volume, profit, number of stores and number of employees, are also important indicators to judge influence.
What is not known to the public, however, is that the above judgment of the Supreme Court only represents the end of the trademark objection procedure, and the competition for the 24 types of trademark rights of Muji is far from over. It is reported that the trademark 156 1046 "Muji" has entered the invalidation procedure. If a good product scheme puts forward new facts or reasons in the invalidation procedure, it is entirely possible that different results will appear.
A good product plan is certainly not willing to give up. In 20 14 years, shortly after the Supreme People's Court made a judgment on the trademark administrative caseNo. 156 1046, Liangpin Plan filed a series of lawsuits against Beijing Muji Company, a subsidiary of Miantian Company, on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition. It is requested to order the latter to immediately stop the infringement of trademarks such as "MUJI" and "Muji" under the name of the good product plan, stop using enterprise names containing the words "Muji" and "Muji", issue a statement to eliminate the adverse effects, and compensate the corresponding economic losses and reasonable expenses.
From July, 2065438 to July, 2007, Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment on this series of cases, and held that the use of "Muji", "Muji House" and "Muji" logos on the accused infringing goods by Beijing Muji Company, a subsidiary of Miantian Company, belonged to the situation of using the same or similar trademarks on the same goods, which easily caused confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. In fact, it has already been made public.
The court also held that Beijing MUJI Company used the company name of "Beijing Muji Investment Co., Ltd." and the English company name of "Muji Home (Beijing) Investment Co., Ltd." in the alleged infringing products and publicity activities, which constituted unfair competition for Muji projects.
Therefore, the court ordered Beijing Muji Company to stop the relevant infringement, issued a statement to eliminate the impact, and compensated the economic losses and reasonable expenses of the good product plan totaling nearly 2 million yuan. Although Beijing Muji Company appealed the judgment, the second-instance judgment made by Beijing Higher People's Court on February 20 17 17 still upheld the original judgment. After this judgment was confirmed, Beijing Muji Company paid compensation to the Liangpin Project.