A dispute between a popular Chinese milk tea chain and a French luxury firm has sparked widespread public discussion on intellectual property protection and the application of cultural elements, with experts calling for a rational approach and emphasizing that trademark use should not infringe on pre-existing registered marks. The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province ruled 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 flower graphic trademarks. The court ordered the milk tea chain to cease the infringement and pay CNY10.3 million to the French luxury brand. Additionally, the Chinese company was required to issue a public apology.
The dispute revolves around the similarity between Molly Tea’s brand emblem – a four-petal flower design – and Louis Vuitton’s. 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 (CNIPA), primarily covering restaurants, accommodation, 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. A hashtag “Louis Vuitton sues Molly Tea for CNY10.3 million 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. Opinions online are divided. Some argue that the tea brand’s floral emblem closely mimics that of the French luxury firm, 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 pattern, suggesting it may have been inspired by traditional Chinese cultural motifs. Kang Lixia, 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 emphasized 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 recognized 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, as reported by the China Daily.
