Recently, an original designer publicly voiced accusations on social media, alleging that a Harry Potter-themed ring product under MINISO's brand involves plagiarism of their original design. The designer published comparison images between their original design drafts and MINISO's offline physical products, claiming the two bear high similarity in appearance.

The designer informed that they have filed a lawsuit and the case has entered judicial proceedings. As of press time, MINISO officials have not responded to this matter.

Beyond this case, MINISO has been embroiled in numerous intellectual property disputes and unfair competition-related lawsuits. According to information from Tianyancha, MINISO (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. was involved in 13 judicial cases from November 13, 2024, to September 1, 2025, with 5 cases involving unfair competition disputes, design patent infringement disputes, and copyright ownership and infringement disputes, all as defendants, accounting for 38.5%.

**Ring Design Triggers Lawsuit from Original Designer**

Recently, independent designer Zavier published a statement on social media, accusing a Harry Potter-themed ring product under MINISO's brand of allegedly plagiarizing their original design.

In the statement, the designer expressed: "Recently, I discovered that a product manufactured and sold by MINISO (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. bears high similarity to my original design. As an individual creator facing an industry giant, I immediately chose the most rational and restrained communication approach, attempting to negotiate through formal correspondence. Unfortunately, we have not reached consensus thus far."

Regarding further developments, the independent designer stated: "To protect my legitimate rights and defend the dignity of originality, I have formally filed a lawsuit with the court. I believe in the fairness of the law."

Additionally, the designer published comparison images between their original design drafts and MINISO's offline physical products, stating that "the snake element design, gemstone setting positions, setting deconstruction, and gemstone colors are all highly similar."

The independent designer also mentioned: "I publish this statement not to incite emotions, but based on the following considerations: First, transparency and openness - this matter has entered judicial proceedings, and I have the responsibility to inform friends and supporters who have been following me; Second, to call for respect for originality - I hope to use this opportunity to once again appeal to the market to give basic respect to original design, as individual creativity is the source of vitality for the entire industry; Third, to seek social supervision - I firmly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I hope this matter can be handled legally and compliantly under public supervision."

Regarding this, inquiries were made to the independent designer, mainly asking about two aspects: first, whether they received an official reply from MINISO's legal department; second, whether the other party provided explanations for this incident.

The designer replied: "There was a response, the official kind of denial process." Additionally, they indicated having contacted a lawyer, revealing that the lawyer advised collecting evidence first, then applying for prosecution: "If there's mediation later, we'll mediate; if mediation fails, we'll formally file the case and go through legal procedures."

Meanwhile, verification was sought from MINISO officials, but as of now, MINISO has not responded to this matter.

**Continuous Controversies: 5 Infringement Lawsuits in 10 Months**

In fact, the aforementioned alleged "plagiarism" behavior by MINISO is not an isolated case.

Consumers have complained on social media that MINISO quickly launched a water cup with a design almost identical to Starbucks' six-color rainbow cup, directly printing their own logo before bringing it to market. Additionally, MINISO has launched products similar to Elizabeth Arden Green Tea Lotion and Lanvin women's fragrance, all attracting widespread attention.

Internet users have discovered that multiple products highly similar to classic fragrances under Dior can be found in MINISO stores, such as "budget versions" of Dior's "Miss Dior" and "Dior Sauvage" fragrances. These products are so similar to authentic products in bottle design and fragrance style that some consumers directly stated they "cannot distinguish between real and fake."

Regarding this, Dior's official customer service indicated: "Currently, there are no relevant information records showing cooperation with MINISO; all our products are directly sold by the brand." They further mentioned: "Dior only has sales rights; we cannot directly handle such 'counterfeit goods.' Dior is not an enforcement agency and can only record feedback and submit it to relevant departments for processing."

Moreover, MINISO has been involved in numerous intellectual property and unfair competition-related lawsuits. According to Tianyancha information, MINISO (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. was involved in 13 judicial cases from November 13, 2024, to September 1, 2025, with 5 cases involving unfair competition disputes, design patent infringement disputes, and copyright ownership and infringement disputes, all as defendants, accounting for 38.5%.

Among these, KK Group (Guangdong Kuaike E-commerce Co., Ltd.) sued MINISO and its affiliated companies for "trademark squatting and unfair competition" regarding their "THE COLORIST" brand trademarks domestically and overseas, with the civil first-instance hearing held on September 1st.

According to public information, this dispute originated in 2019. At that time, KK Group's beauty retail brand "THE COLORIST" simultaneously opened dual flagship stores in Guangzhou and Shenzhen in September of that year. However, shortly after, KK Group discovered their trademark was squatted domestically by Axin Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., and in multiple overseas countries by Shenzhen Falaishen Consulting Management Co., Ltd., both companies having affiliated relationships with MINISO.

Since 2020, KK Group began defending their rights through legal channels. Regarding trademarks, Beijing High People's Court's second-instance ruling determined that the squatting party's behavior constituted "obtaining registration through other improper means," ordering cancellation of the squatted trademarks. Regarding store design infringement, Nanjing Intermediate People's Court's first-instance ruling determined that MINISO's "WOW COLOUR" store design was highly similar to "THE COLORIST," ordering cessation of infringement and compensation of 2 million yuan.

**Busy "Rescuing" Yonghui, Ye Guofu's "Backyard Catches Fire"**

In the first half of this year, MINISO delivered seemingly stable financial data that concealed underlying concerns.

In the first half, MINISO's revenue increased 21.1% year-on-year to 9.393 billion yuan, while net profit attributable to company shareholders decreased 22.6% year-on-year to 906 million yuan. Under International Financial Reporting Standards, adjusted net profit increased 3.0% year-on-year to 1.278 billion yuan. Notably, although MINISO's revenue continued growing, its main brand "MINISO" actually experienced negative growth in mainland China store numbers in the first half, with a net reduction of 81 stores, while sub-brand TOP TOY's store opening pace also slowed.

Regarding this, MINISO founder and CEO Ye Guofu pointed out that they are no longer purely pursuing quantity growth and will continue optimizing channel combinations. Additionally, the large-store model will be a development focus for "MINISO" this year.

Under MINISO's growth concerns, the "transformation" process of Yonghui Superstores, which he leads, also seems unsatisfactory. On August 21st, Yonghui Superstores released its first-half 2025 financial report, showing poor performance. The report showed that in the first half of this year, Yonghui Superstores achieved revenue of 29.948 billion yuan, down 20.73% year-on-year; net profit of -241 million yuan, down 187.38% year-on-year; and non-recurring profit and loss of -802 million yuan, down 2,786.27% year-on-year.

Currently, one of the biggest challenges facing Ye Guofu in his "dual-front battle" lies in MINISO's IP business still struggling to catch up while Pop Mart sweeps globally through IP economy and overseas expansion.

In reality, the commercial war between the two companies has been intense. In early August, controversy over Pop Mart's Thailand flagship store "resembling" MINISO stores became a trending topic. During the incident's fermentation, an unexpected reversal occurred when internet users directly pointed out that MINISO allegedly recruited "internet trolls" at 300 yuan per post to hype related topics. However, neither Pop Mart nor MINISO has made official responses to this matter.

Facing limited growth ceilings, MINISO has actively expanded into the trendy toy sector in recent years, including launching TOP TOY and adding trendy toy categories in stores. However, in the view of Jiahe Consulting Partner Li Yingtao, whether MINISO can successfully transform into a trendy toy brand remains highly questionable.

He further analyzed: "First, regarding business DNA - MINISO's main revenue source is daily necessities, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and channel efficiency. Its core competitiveness lies in scaled store networks and efficient supply chain systems. However, trendy toy brands like Pop Mart succeed through IP creation and continuous operational capabilities, relying on creative IP and content incubation - completely different logics. Second, to truly focus on trendy toys requires profound organizational and management changes. Currently, the entire team's thinking and management methods still follow daily retail logic, while trendy toys require completely different talent, culture, and operational mechanisms. Continuing MINISO's previous operational model may create mismatches."

Li Yingtao stated: "MINISO should give its trendy toy business line higher autonomy, fully delegating authority in IP creation, product design, and brand positioning, even considering organizational separation and cultural division. Supply chain coordination is possible, but business operations should remain independent. Only this way can the trendy toy business have trendy characteristics; otherwise, its original advantages might become constraints on new business development."