There are waves between the two Chinese and Japanese MUJI companies.
On November 4, according to the Beijing Court Trial Information Network, Muji MUJI japan was commercially defamated by a court judgment for allegedly devaluing the goodwill of Beijing MUJI, and must compensate Beijing MUJI for economic losses of 300,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan, and publicly declare to eliminate the impact.
According to the reporter's understanding, the two sides had previously been entangled for four years because of the "MUJI" trademark, and finally the Japanese MUJI MUJI was found to be infringing and lost the lawsuit. In November 2019, Muji Muji of Japan issued a public statement on this issue.
Unexpectedly, this statement actually triggered a new round of disputes between the two sides.
Japanese muji was sentenced
Compensation of 626,000 yuan for Beijing MUJI
It is reported that Muji Muji was born in 1980 and is a brand registered and operated by the Good Products Co., Ltd. "MUJI" means "excellent product without a name", and mainly promotes various high-quality products such as clothing, daily necessities, and food. In April 2005, Muji Muji entered China and is currently operated by MUJI (Shanghai) Commercial Co., Ltd.
The domestic "MUJI" trademark was first registered by Hainan Nanhua Industrial Trading Company in April 2001, and the approved scope of use was Category 24 "cotton fabrics, towels, towels, towel quilts, bath towels, pillow towels, floor towels, orders, pillowcases, pants, quilt covers, cover mats, cushion covers" goods.
Subsequently, in 2004, Hainan Nanhua Industrial Trading Company transferred this trademark to Beijing Cotton Field Company. In July 2011, Beijing Cotton Field Company registered the trademark "MUJI", which is also used in Class 24, and subsequently authorized Beijing MUJI to use it.
The "MUJI" trademark dispute between the two sides began in 2015. Believing that muji Muji's use of "MUJI" on carpets, bedspreads, mattresses, bath towels, face towels, quilt covers, pillowcases and other goods produced and sold constitutes trademark infringement, Beijing Cotton Field Company and Beijing MUJI Company sued the two companies behind Muji MUJI to the court.
After four years, the case was finally decided. On November 4, 2019, the Beijing Higher People's Court found that the japanese MUJI MUJI infringed the infringement, and ordered the Japanese MUJI party to immediately stop the infringement, compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 500,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of more than 126,000 yuan, and issue a 30-day statement to eliminate the impact of the infringement.
Unexpectedly, the statement released by Japan's MUJI Muji triggered a new round of disputes between the two sides.
A statement that sparked a new round of disputes between the two sides.
According to the statement, within the scope of the Chinese mainland, the "MUJI" trademark is registered in almost all goods and services categories, but only on some of the product categories such as cloth, towels, and bedspreads, the "MUJI" trademark has been preemptively registered by other companies. Therefore, MUJI Japan cannot use the "MUJI" trademark for these products in China, but it incorrectly used the trademark in 2014 and 2015.
The word "squatting" used in the statement was the trigger for the new lawsuit.
Whether the term "squatting" constitutes commercial defamation
The two sides are at loggerheads
In the view of Beijing Cotton Field Company, the term "preemptive registration" means that it is an illegal act to preemptively apply for a registered trademark for a mark that others enjoy prior rights and interests through illegal means such as unfair competition.
Beijing Cotton Field Company believes that the japanese muji MUJI's statement that "it was preemptively registered the 'MUJI' trademark by other companies" and the statement before and after it are enough to cause the public to think that the Miantian Company is an "outlaw" and preemptively register the trademark of Japan MUJI MUJI, and then think that the "MUJI" towels, quilts and other goods of the Miantian Company are copycat goods.
Therefore, Beijing Cotton Field Company sued the two companies behind Japan's MUJI MUJI on the grounds of commercial defamation. Beijing Cotton Field Company requested the court to award the defendant 3 million yuan in economic losses and 100,000 yuan in reasonable expenses; and issued statements for a month to eliminate the impact on Muji MUJI's WeChat public account, Tmall Jingdong online store and physical store, and newspaper media for a month.
Muji Muji argued that the purpose of issuing the public statement was to fulfill the judgment, eliminate the impact, clarify the boundaries of the rights of both parties, and avoid public confusion. Moreover, the statement comprehensively and truthfully states the objective facts, and does not have the intention to damage the goodwill of Beijing Cotton Field Company.
In addition, Muji Muji of Japan mentioned that the term "squatting" itself does not have a negative evaluation and does not constitute a derogatory damage to goodwill. On the whole, the content of the statement involving "squatting" is very small, and it does not directly point to Beijing Cotton Field Company, and readers will not misunderstand the goodwill and rights status of Beijing Cotton Field Company after reading.
Therefore, Muji Muji japan believed that the acts involved in the case did not constitute commercial defamation, and requested the court to rule to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims.
The Court's Judgment:
Trademark law has made a negative judgment on "squatting"
After combing through the facts of the case, the court held that the focus of this case focused on whether the statement involved in the case was an act of fabricating or disseminating false or misleading information, whether the statement damaged the goodwill of the cotton field company, and the liability of the defendant after the establishment of commercial defamation.
In the court's view, the object of "squatting" of a trademark should be a trademark that has been used by others and has a certain impact, and the trademark law already contains a negative judgment of wrongdoing in the trademark law. The effective judgment of the relevant law has determined that the "MUJI" trademark involved in the case is a legally registered trademark and not a preemptive trademark. In the statement involved in the case, Muji MUJI still alleged that "other companies preemptively registered" trademarks, conveying false information that was inconsistent with objective facts, constituting the act of fabricating and disseminating false information.
As to whether the statement in question harmed the goodwill of Beijing Cotton Field Company, the court pointed out that the statement was issued based on the effective judgment involving both parties and explicitly mentioned Beijing Cotton Field Company, so that the public would directly link the "other companies" that implemented the "squatting" with Beijing Cotton Field Company. In the statement, Japan's muji MUJI once again emphasized its legitimacy and legitimacy, and the unfairness and illegality of the Cotton Field Company were already contained in it.
The court further pointed out that the trademark dispute between the two parties has been going on for many years, and in order to maintain the authority of the effective judgment, Muji MUJI of Japan should have issued a statement to the outside world in an objective and prudent manner, but the statement was contrary to the facts, which was not an appropriate performance of the effective judgment. Therefore, the statement of Muji MUJI of Japan actually derogatorily depreciated the goodwill of Beijing Cotton Field Company and constituted commercial slander.
In the calculation of the amount of compensation, the court did not fully support the losses suffered by Beijing Cotton Field Company as a result of the acts involved in the case and the defendant's tortious benefits.
After comprehensive consideration, the court made a first-instance judgment that Muji MUJI must compensate Cotton Field Company for economic losses of 300,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan, publish a statement in Tmall's official flagship store and domestic physical stores, eliminate the impact, and reject other claims of Cotton Field Company.
, n Video report