中國市場長年上演的「MUJI 無印良品商標之爭」，實際上是中日兩家公司在商標布局上的重大碰撞，也是跨國品牌進軍中國時一個經典的法律案例。

這場紛爭源於中國北京棉田紡織品公司所擁有的「無印良品」商標。早在2001年，中國海南南華實業貿易公司便已註冊第24類「無印良品」商標，涵蓋床單、毛巾等紡織類商品。2004年，這項商標轉讓給北京棉田，該公司後來於2011年成立「北京無印良品公司」，正式以此商標經營日用品，並取得在中國境內的合法商業主體資格。

而日本原創品牌「無印良品」由良品計畫株式會社（Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd.）營運，最早於2005年進入中國，並以「MUJI」品牌進行國際化擴張。然而，雖然日本MUJI當時在中國已開始申請註冊多類商標，但卻忽略第24類這一涵蓋紡織用品的重要分類，導致在該類商品上出現法律真空。

2015年，北京棉田公司以商標侵權為由，反向起訴日本MUJI在中國銷售的毛巾、床罩等商品違法使用「無印良品」字樣。這起訴訟震驚外界，因為「正版品牌」竟被「搶先註冊者」告上法庭，且最終敗訴。2017年法院一審判定日本MUJI構成侵權，判賠約62.6萬人民幣，並須停止使用相關商標；2019年北京高等法院駁回上訴，維持原判。

此案引發大眾強烈反應，不少消費者質疑法律制度是否過於機械，導致原創品牌反成侵權者。然而，北京棉田方面則堅持自己依法註冊商標，合法經營，並表示自己與日本良品計畫並無任何關聯。

值得注意的是，在中國商標法下，採「先申請先擁有」原則，且需「分類別」申請，不同商品類別各自獨立，導致即便MUJI已擁有多類商品商標，只要沒涵蓋到24類，就無法對應保護。這也成為日本 MUJI最終敗訴的關鍵。

目前，日本MUJI雖在第24類的「無印良品」使用上受到限制，但仍可在其他商品類別以「MUJI」品牌經營，並透過品牌辨識度與消費者基礎維持其市場影響力。不過，許多商品的包裝上不得再單獨使用「無印良品」四字，須改用「MUJI」或其他標示。

這場中日商標糾紛，不僅是單純的品牌權爭，更凸顯出國際品牌進入中國市場時，若商標布局不夠周延，極容易遭遇「搶註」或「逆轉控訴」的法律風險。對 MUJI 來說，這是一次昂貴的教訓，也是一段品牌國際化歷程中極具代表性的商業案例。

The long-standing "MUJI trademark dispute" in the Chinese market is, in fact, a major clash in trademark strategy between a Chinese and a Japanese company. It has also become a classic legal case illustrating the challenges international brands may face when entering the Chinese market.

The dispute stems from the ownership of the "無印良品" (MUJI) trademark by Beijing Cottonfield Textile Co. The trademark in question was originally registered in 2001 by Hainan Nanhua Industrial & Trading Company under Category 24, which covers textile goods such as bed sheets and towels. In 2004, the trademark rights were transferred to Beijing Cottonfield, which later established "Beijing MUJI Co., Ltd." in 2011 to officially conduct business under this trademark. The company gained legal commercial status within China using this name.

Meanwhile, the original Japanese brand MUJI, operated by Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd., first entered the Chinese market in 2005, promoting its international expansion under the “MUJI” brand name. At the time, although Ryohin Keikaku was actively applying for trademark registration across multiple categories in China, it overlooked Category 24, which includes textile products. This oversight created a legal loophole that would later lead to serious consequences.

In 2015, Beijing Cottonfield filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Japanese MUJI, claiming that the sale of towels, bed linens, and similar products using the "無印良品" wording in China was illegal. The lawsuit shocked the public because the so-called "authentic brand" was being sued by a prior registrant and ultimately lost the case. In 2017, the court ruled in favor of Beijing Cottonfield, ordering Ryohin Keikaku to pay approximately 626,000 RMB in damages and to cease use of the contested trademark on related goods. The Beijing High Court upheld the ruling in 2019, rejecting MUJI's appeal.

The case sparked public controversy, with many consumers questioning whether the legal system had become too rigid, resulting in the original brand being treated as the infringer. However, Beijing Cottonfield maintained that it had registered the trademark legally and was conducting legitimate business, stressing that it had no affiliation with Japan’s Ryohin Keikaku.

Under China’s Trademark Law, trademarks are awarded on a "first-to-file" basis and must be registered by specific categories. Each category is treated independently. As a result, even though MUJI held trademarks in multiple categories, its failure to secure rights in Category 24 meant it had no legal protection over textile goods in that classification. This became the key factor behind MUJI's defeat in court.

Currently, while Japanese MUJI faces restrictions in using "無印良品" for Category 24 goods in China, it continues to operate under the "MUJI" brand in other product categories. It relies on brand recognition and a loyal customer base to maintain its market presence. However, product packaging for textiles must no longer feature the Chinese characters 無印良品 alone, and instead must use "MUJI" or alternative labels.

This trademark dispute between China and Japan is more than just a battle over brand rights. It highlights the critical importance of thorough trademark strategy for international brands entering China. Without comprehensive planning, companies face risks such as trademark squatting or even reverse litigation. For MUJI, this has become an expensive lesson and a highly representative case in the broader context of brand globalization.