Publications

๐Ÿ“›๐—ง๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ธ ๐—ง๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฏ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€ โ€“ ๐— ๐—จ๐—๐—œโ€™๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—•๐—ฎ๐˜๐˜๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ถ๐˜๐˜€ ๐—–๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ก๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐Ÿงต

06/09/2025

After 24 years of litigation, Japanese lifestyle brand MUJI has lost its trademark battle over โ€œๆ— ๅฐ่‰ฏๅ“โ€ in China. The Supreme Peopleโ€™s Court ruled in favor of Beijing Miantian Textile Co., Ltd., which owns the mark for textile goods in Class 24.

Why did MUJI lose? The case highlights the consequences of Chinaโ€™s โ€œfirst-to-fileโ€ system and the importance of early, comprehensive trademark registration. MUJIโ€™s failure to secure its Chinese name across all relevant classes back in 1999 has now limited its ability to use the name on products like towels and bed linens in the PRC.

Our IP Prosecution Team members, Valerie Suen and Winnie Ho, break down the implications of this decision and share practical insights for brand owners navigating Chinaโ€™s trademark landscape. A must-read for anyone expanding into the region