Core Viewpoint - The long-standing trademark dispute between MUJI and Beijing Cotton Field has seen a recent development, with the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the validity of the "MUJI" trademark in Class 24, which includes textiles and bedding products, thus rejecting MUJI's request for retrial [1][3]. Group 1: Trademark Dispute Overview - The Supreme Court's ruling on June 23, 2024, maintains the legal status of the "MUJI" trademark held by Beijing Cotton Field, which has been a point of contention for 24 years [1][3]. - MUJI stated that the court's decision only affects a limited range of products in China and does not impact its overall operations or brand development in the market [1][5]. - Beijing Cotton Field's chairman expressed that this ruling may lead to a new phase of commercial competition, emphasizing the significant cultural and business interests at stake [1][3]. Group 2: Business Operations and Market Presence - Beijing Cotton Field operates nearly 300 online stores and over 200 physical stores, with a projected scale of 4 billion in the home textile sector by 2024 [1][3]. - The "MUJI" trademark in Class 24 was originally registered by Hainan Nanhua Industrial Trade Company in April 2000 and later transferred to Beijing Cotton Field in 2004 [3][5]. - MUJI has established multiple official online sales channels, including its own website and various e-commerce platforms, to ensure consumers can identify and purchase authentic products [5][6]. Group 3: Consumer Confusion and Brand Differentiation - Consumers have reported confusion due to the presence of multiple stores with similar branding, including "MUJI" and "Natural Mill," which may mislead them regarding product quality and origin [1][2]. - Beijing Cotton Field has taken steps to differentiate its offerings by using additional branding, such as "Natural Mill," to clarify its identity in the market [4][5].

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].