In its recent first-instance judgment on the commercial defamation dispute sued by Beijing Natural Mill against Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd., and MUJI (Shanghai) Commercial Co., Ltd., the Chaoyang District Court determined that MUJI had constituted a commercial slander and ordered a 400,000 yuan compensation to Natural Mill. 

In April 2015, holding the cause of action that the use of "無印良品" by MUJI Company in blankets, bedspreads, mattresses, pillowcases and other commodities constitutes trademark infringement, Beijing Miantian Company and Beijing Natural Mill Company, as co-plaintiffs, sued MUJI (Shanghai) Commercial Co., Ltd. to Beijing Intellectual Property Court, demanding that the defendant bears legal responsibilities, such as stopping the infringement, compensating the losses and eliminating the negative impacts. 

In 2017, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reached judgment according to law, and found that the trademark infringement of MUJI was established. 

MUJI refused to accept the ruling and made the appeal. On November 4, 2019, Beijing Higher Court issued civil judgments (2018) No.172 and No.173, upholding the original judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

On November 10, 2017, MUJI issued a statement on its official flagship store of Tmall and offline stores, saying that other companies had squatted the "MUJI" trademark under classes of cloth, towel and bedspread. 

Natural Mill alleged this regard as a rumor spread and fabricated by MUJI, which leads to misunderstanding of the public to think that the towels, quilts and other products of Natural Mill are fake goods, causing damage to Natural Mill and constituting commercial slander. 

On this ground, Natural Mill brought MUJI to court, and demanded 3 million yuan compensation for the economic losses caused by the commercial slander, as well as reasonable expenses of 100 thousand yuan to cease the infringing act. 

In July, 2021, Chaoyang District Court determined according to law that "preemptive registration" in trademark law already included negative judgment of illegal behavior. On this premise, the allegation of the two defendants is not in line with objective facts, and shall be deemed as derogatory judgment. Objectively speaking, the public statement issued by the two defendants is in contrary to the facts, which actually derogates the goodwill of Natural Mill. The court finally ruled that the two defendants compensated Natural Mill for economic losses of 300,000 yuan and reasonable expenses to stop infringement, totaling 100,000 yuan.