On July 2, 2026, Chinese media reported that the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court has issued a first-instance civil judgment in a trademark infringement action brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier (LV) against Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Management Co., Ltd. and a related retail outlet, Dongxia Beverage Shop. The court found that the defendants infringed seven of LV’s registered trademarks featuring a four-petal floral graphic, and ordered the defendants to pay RMB 10 million in compensatory damages plus RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement costs, for a total of RMB 10.3 million ($1.5 million). The defendants are also required to corrective statements on six platforms - the company’s official website, Weibo, WeChat public account, WeChat mini-program, Xiaohongshu, and Douyin -to eliminate the reputational effects of the infringement.

 LV holds seven registered trademarks incorporating its four-petal floral motif, a design element that forms part of its globally recognized monogram pattern. Molly Tea, a Chinese milk tea chain, adopted a four-petal flower graphic as its core brand logo, deploying it across physical store signage, beverage packaging, online mini-programs, and promotional materials.

 

Molly Tea had previously attempted to register its logo as a trademark. Its application for trademark no. 81049590 (“茉莉奶白 MOLLY TEA 及图”, filed August 23, 2024, in Class 43 for catering and accommodation services) was refused by CNIPA. The refusal cited prior marks, including two LV four-petal floral figurative marks (cited marks nos. 61812518A and 61812517A). Molly Tea filed a refusal review, which CNIPA dismissed. Molly Tea did not pursue further administrative litigation, and the refusal review decision became final.

 

The case has attracted significant online debate in China.

Many Chinese netizens argue that Louis Vuitton’s four-petal monogram was heavily inspired by historical Asian motifs. Critics point out that almost identical geometric flower patterns appeared on Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD) artifacts—such as a famous rosewood pipa (lute)—centuries before the French fashion house was founded. Highlighting this cultural overlap, state media outlets like the Global Times ran features stating Chinese netizens accused LV of trying to “monopolize ancient motifs” that belong in the public domain. 

 

Conversely, other commentators support the court’s ruling, pointing out that Molly Tea clearly pushed boundaries by adopting a black-and-white four-petal motif that immediately mimicked a global luxury asset. China operates on a strict “first-to-file” system for intellectual property. Because Louis Vuitton registered the specific geometric design first, it holds exclusive, indisputable legal protection regardless of the historical origin of the design.

 

A third group of netizens believes the lawsuit was an act of corporate overreach. They argue that a luxury fashion house and a jasmine milk tea chain operate in entirely different commercial sectors, meaning no rational consumer would mistake a cup of tea for a Louis Vuitton product. Furthermore, critics argue that simple, basic geometric shapes are too universal to be ring-fenced by a single brand.                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                     Source China Daily