Consumers are guided by many factors when making purchasing decisions. In many markets, the origin of a brand is one of the most important considerations. It is therefore understandable that companies use geographic affiliation in their brand marketing strategy. The question is, when does cultural imitation become inspiration and when does it become deliberate deception? Does cultural imitation misrepresent the origin of a product? And can it be grounds for trademark invalidation? We will look for answers using the example of MINISO.
MINISO (名创优品 read: míng chuàng yōu pǐn) is the brand of a chain of stores offering a wide range of home furnishings, fashion accessories, stationery, cosmetics, toys and a variety of modern gadgets. The brand is based on the principle that good quality goods can be bought at affordable prices. And indeed, MINISO’s products are very attractively priced.
The MINISO chain was created by two entrepreneurs: Chinese Ye Guofu and Japanese designer Miyake Junya. Although formally a Chinese company, the store’s design draws on Japanese aesthetics. Japaneseness is also communicated in one version of the logo – a distinctive red bag with four Japanese characters. We say ‘a version of the logo’ because the trademark, with the Latin transcription ‘MINISO’, is more commonly displayed behind the Great Wall.
Looking at any version of the MINISO logo, it is impossible to avoid associations with the Japanese clothing giant UNIQLO (优衣库 read: yōuyīkù), which is also very popular in China. Founded in Japan in 1963, this chain of fashion stores behind the Great Wall operates a network of 929 stores.
The chain’s popularity is undoubtedly due to the fact that the Chinese have a great deal of trust in Japanese brands, mainly through the prism of unquestionable quality. Another sales driver is simply the chain’s ‘Japaneseness’. It is to the Chinese what the German origin of, say, household appliances is to the Poles. It is probably no coincidence that UNIQLO’s clothing labels are also printed in Japanese. The same goes for MINISO – to this day, many consumers mistakenly believe that the chain originated in Japan. The similarity between MINISO’s logo and UNIQLO’s is probably no coincidence either. The company was not transparent about this until a certain point.
MINISO’s Japanese image clearly reflects the brand’s marketing communication strategy. The pretence of being from the land of cherry blossom was probably deliberately adopted to make it easier for MINISO to succeed in international markets. In China, this strategy allows MINISO to walk a fine line between cultural appreciation and cultural endorsement.
In this case, there is another aspect that increases the risks of this strategy: the unhealed wounds of a very difficult relationship between the two peoples. As a result, what was bound to happen sooner or later has happened. MINISO was cast in a negative light behind the Great Wall precisely because of the ‘Japanness’ of the network. This provoked protests from the Chinese consumers, who are very easily collectively incited. Well, and MINISO had to… apologise and start ‘de-Japanising’ its image.
A trade mark has many functions, of which there are three main ones. The first is the function of identifying origin. Trademarks are used as indicators of the commercial source or cultural association of the goods being sold. Secondly, it has the function of guaranteeing quality, which is represented by the trademark as a symbol of qualities that consumers can associate with the goods. Finally, there is a third function, that of investment or advertising, which makes trademarks the object of investment in the promotion of the product and the value of the brand itself. The misleading use of cultural signs contradicts at least one of these functions. Although it must be admitted that it can be effective, especially in the context of the results of brand investment
One of the aims of the Chinese Trademark Office (#CNIPA) is to protect consumers as to the origin or authenticity of the brand. Because of the Kanji transcription in the MINISO logo, many consumers may mistakenly believe that the brand originated in Japan, when in fact it belongs to a Chinese company. One might conclude that the MINISO mark should not be protected because it misleads consumers as to the geographical origin of the goods. However, the case is not that simple. Although the head office, production and commercial operations are in China, the co-founder and chief designer is from Japan. It is therefore not so easy to prove that a brand is deliberately misleading consumers by relying on its reputation for Japanese quality.