Workflow
“无印良品”山寨店泛滥,商誉攀附为何愈演愈烈?
Nan Fang Du Shi Bao·2025-06-12 23:10

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing trademark dispute between MUJI and Beijing Cotton Field has led to consumer confusion regarding the authenticity of various brands using similar names and branding, particularly during promotional events like the 618 shopping festival [5][14][20]. Group 1: Trademark Dispute Background - The trademark conflict began around 2000, stemming from lax trademark registration practices in China, which allowed companies to register numerous idle trademarks, leading to the emergence of counterfeit brands [5][19]. - Over the past decade, nearly 100 lawsuits have been filed between MUJI's parent company, Ryohin Keikaku, and Beijing Cotton Field over trademark rights [5][14]. - Beijing Cotton Field has registered 165 trademarks related to "MUJI" from 2000 to 2024, with 13 currently active and others deemed invalid [11][14]. Group 2: Consumer Confusion and Complaints - Consumers have reported being misled by online stores claiming to be official MUJI outlets, resulting in issues such as product quality discrepancies and misleading information from customer service [7][9]. - The presence of multiple online stores with similar names, such as "MUJI Home Textile Flagship Store" and "MUJI Official Flagship Store," has contributed to consumer confusion [8][9]. - Complaints have surged, with consumers expressing dissatisfaction over the quality of products purchased from these misleading stores [7][9]. Group 3: Business Practices and Market Expansion - Beijing Cotton Field has expanded its product categories and is actively seeking franchise partners, despite ongoing legal disputes [15][17]. - The company has launched a strategy to open 5,000 stores by 2026, aiming for sales exceeding 10 billion [16][17]. - The branding and store design of Beijing Cotton Field's outlets closely resemble that of MUJI, which raises concerns about misleading consumers [10][18]. Group 4: Legal and Regulatory Context - Legal experts suggest that Beijing Cotton Field's actions may violate anti-unfair competition laws due to the potential for consumer confusion [18]. - The Chinese government has implemented policies to strengthen intellectual property protection and promote brand development, which may impact the future of such trademark disputes [20].