Recently, Beijing Court Trial Information Official Website (bjcourt.gov.cn) published a civil ruling on retrial review and trial supervision of trademark infringement disputes between Beijing Cottonfield Textile Company and MUJI (Shanghai) Commercial Co., Ltd. and MUJI (Shanghai) Commercial Co., Ltd. Beijing Chaoyang Third Branch. According to the ruling, Beijing High Court rejected the retrial application of Cottonfield and Beijing Natural Mill.

According to the Beijing High Court, based on the recorded facts, In addition to the sale of towels and quilts MUJI Chaoyang Third Branch also sells stationery, food, furniture, clothing, electrical appliances, cosmetics and other commodities in the shops involved, so the shops do not specialize in cotton fabrics such as towels and quilts, but in grocery stores. According to the location, method, service content, actual sales of goods and the general cognition of the relevant public, the use of the store signboard trademark of the specialty store involved cannot only point to a certain commodity or a certain class of goods.

The specialty store involved in the case provides pre-sale printed packaging bags for unspecified goods, which is actually a way for the store to provide services, which is convenient for consumers to take away all kinds of goods and use them. The trademark involved is not used on the alleged infringing products "towel" and "thin quilt", but the trademark "MUJI" legally registered by the parent company of MUJI Shanghai is used on the label. It can be seen that MUJI Shanghai and MUJI Chaoyang Third Branch have reasonably avoided the trademark rights involved. If we don't consider the combination form of goods and packaging, and only assumably correspond the logo of the packaging bag involved with the goods in the bag one by one, then the packaging bag will become the trademark of the goods when it is filled with any goods, which undoubtedly does not conform to the function of trademark in identifying the source of goods. The use of the trademark attached to the packaging bag in this case cannot point to the provider of the trademark involved (namely, Cottonfield Company and Beijing Natural Mill), which may cause confusion and misunderstanding among consumers.

On such grounds, Beijing High Court finally rejected the retrial applications of Cottonfield Company and Beijing Natural Mill.