BEIJING: A dispute between a popular Chinese milk tea chain and a French luxury giant has sparked widespread public discussion on intellectual property protection and the application of cultural elements, with experts calling for a rational approach and emphasising that trademark use should not infringe on pre-existing registered marks.
On Thursday (July 2), Chinese media reported that the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province found that Molly Tea, a Shenzhen-based milk tea company, and a franchise store in Suzhou’s Wuzhong district, had infringed upon seven of Louis Vuitton’s registered four-petal flower graphic trademarks.
The court ordered the milk tea chain to cease the infringement and pay 10.3 million yuan (US$1.5mil) to the French luxury brand. Additionally, the Chinese company was required to issue a public apology, according to reports.
Nanfang Metropolis Daily, a newspaper based in Guangzhou, Guangdong province, said the dispute revolves around the similarity between Molly Tea’s brand emblem — a four-petal flower design — and Louis Vuitton’s iconic monogram motifs.
The lawsuit was initiated by the French brand in May 2025, and the ruling was made on June 29. Molly Tea has confirmed its intention to appeal to a higher court.
Since March 2024, Molly Tea and its affiliated firms have filed multiple trademark applications featuring floral designs with the China National Intellectual Property Administration, primarily covering restaurant and accommodation services, advertising, and convenience foods.
Most of these applications were rejected, with only the trademark containing the Chinese characters for “Molly Tea” successfully registered.
The verdict has attracted significant public attention and debate on Chinese social media platforms since it was exposed.
A hashtag “Louis Vuitton sues Molly Tea for 10.3 million yuan in damages” has garnered over 360 million views, while the topic “Molly Tea’s LV-like trademark invalidated” has received more than 18.7 million reads.
Opinions online are divided. Some argue that the tea brand’s floral emblem closely mimics that of the French luxury giant, while others believe there are significant visual differences and that the two companies serve distinct markets.
Furthermore, some netizens have questioned the originality of Louis Vuitton’s signature pattern, suggesting it may have been inspired by traditional Chinese cultural motifs.
Kang Lixia, a partner at Beijing Standzer IP Firm, noted that either party dissatisfied with the ruling has the right to appeal. The success of an appeal largely depends on whether the appellant can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its design is original and distinctive.
She emphasised that floral patterns and motifs found in traditional Chinese culture are part of the public cultural domain and can be used by anyone.
However, the Chinese Trademark Law follows the “first to file” principle, meaning that when multiple applicants seek to register identical or similar trademarks for the same or similar goods, the earliest applicant gains trademark rights, while subsequent applications are rejected.
“Although Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton are registered in different classes, LV’s status as an earlier-registered and highly recognised mark entitles it to cross-class protection under the law,” she added.
“This means its rights can, in some cases, extend to unrelated product categories, creating a challenge for later applicants.”
Liu Bin, an IP lawyer from Beijing Zhongwen Law Firm, called for a rational perspective on the dispute, highlighting that under the law, protection for figurative marks does not require the disputed sign to be identical to the registered trademark — the key consideration is whether consumers are likely to be confused.
He noted that the public is primarily puzzled over how traditional Chinese cultural patterns should be protected and used fairly.
“Since these motifs are public resources, many believe no one should have exclusive rights to them,” he said. However, he underscored that IP protection applies to the brand recognition that companies build when they use traditional elements in commerce.
“Traditional elements should remain open and be carried forward, but commercial marks must not confuse the market or mimic earlier registered brands,” he added. - China Daily/ANN
