China Trademark Law: Louis Vuitton v. Molly Tea - The RMB 10.3 Million Four-Petal Logo Dispute
Published 15 July 2026
Yu Du
On 29 June 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court delivered its first-instance judgment in the trademark infringement dispute between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Chinese tea chain Molly Tea. According to portions of the operative part of the judgment published by Chinese media - the complete first-instance judgment has not yet been officially released - the court found that Molly Tea and the outlet involved in the case had infringed the exclusive rights in seven registered LV four-petal floral device marks. The defendants were ordered to cease the infringement, while Molly Tea was ordered to pay a total of RMB 10.3 million in damages and reasonable enforcement expenses.
The judgment has attracted widespread attention, particularly because the parties operate in apparently different commercial sectors, the disputed device incorporates a relatively common floral motif, and the damages award is substantial. On 2 July 2026, Molly Tea’s founder publicly stated that the company would appeal.
Background and Timeline
During 2024, Chinese tea chain Molly Tea adopted a black geometric four-petal floral device as a prominent brand identifier and used it on store signs, beverage packaging and online channels. The company also applied to register related marks.
Its trademark application No. 81049590 in Class 43, covering catering and accommodation services, was refused. The applied-for mark was considered by the CNIPA similar to earlier cited marks, including an LV four-petal device mark, and likely to cause confusion.
On 15 May 2025, Louis Vuitton Malletier commenced trademark infringement proceedings against the operator of Molly Tea and a Suzhou outlet before the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court.
The First-Instance Judgment
On 29 June 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court delivered its first-instance judgment. According to the publicly available operative orders, the court found that the defendants’ use of the four-petal device infringed the exclusive rights in seven registered LV device marks.
The court ordered the defendants to cease the infringing use. Molly Tea was ordered to pay RMB 10 million for economic loss and RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses, making a total of RMB 10.3 million. The Suzhou outlet was held jointly liable up to RMB 100,000.
Molly Tea was also ordered to publish corrective statements on six official channels, including its website, Weibo, WeChat accounts, Xiaohongshu and Douyin.
The complete reasoned judgment has not yet been officially published. Consequently, the precise evidentiary findings, the treatment of each of the seven registrations and the court’s damages calculation cannot yet be independently confirmed.
Why the Case Attracted Significant Attention
The dispute has attracted attention partly because the parties appear to operate in very different sectors: luxury fashion and freshly made tea beverages. Many commentators questioned whether consumers would genuinely believe that a cup of tea originated from Louis Vuitton.
However, trademark confusion is not necessarily limited to confusion over the actual producer. According to media accounts of the court’s reasoning, consumers might not believe that LV manufactured the beverages, but could nevertheless assume that Molly Tea and LV had launched a co-branded product or had some other commercial relationship.
The case has also prompted debate over the cultural origins of four-petal floral patterns. Some members of the public have compared the devices with traditional Chinese baoxianghua and other historical decorative motifs.
The substantial damages award and the possibility that Molly Tea may need to undertake a nationwide rebranding have further increased the commercial significance of the dispute.
Legal Analysis
The first issue is trademark use. Where a graphic is repeatedly displayed as the dominant identifier on storefronts, cups, packaging and digital platforms, it is likely to be regarded as identifying commercial origin rather than serving merely as decoration.
Under Article 57(2) of the 2019 PRC Trademark Law, using a similar mark on the same goods, or using an identical or similar mark on similar goods or services, constitutes infringement where the use is likely to cause confusion.
In this context, confusion may include mistaken assumptions concerning sponsorship, affiliation, authorisation or co-branding, rather than only a mistaken belief that LV itself produced the beverages.
The dispute should therefore not be reduced to a simple comparison between “handbags and tea”. Public materials concerning Molly Tea’s refused Class 43 application indicate that at least one cited LV registration was relevant to catering-related services.
For any asserted LV marks covering dissimilar goods or services, protection of a registered well-known mark under Article 13 may also be relevant. Since the full judgment is unavailable, it would be premature to conclude that the court relied on the same legal route for all seven registrations.
The traditional-motif argument must also be approached carefully. Trademark law does not give any company ownership of the abstract idea of a four-petal flower or of traditional cultural vocabulary.
Protection attaches to the registered visual configuration and the source-identifying goodwill associated with it. Evidence that a motif is common or historically derived may affect distinctiveness, validity or the breadth of protection, but it is not automatically a defence where the defendant uses a highly similar configuration as a commercial badge of origin.
Similarly, the refusal of Molly Tea’s own trademark application does not, by itself, establish civil infringement or bad faith. It may nevertheless be relevant in showing that the company had notice of the conflicting earlier rights before continuing or expanding its use.
Damages are likely to be a major issue on appeal. Article 63 of the 2019 Trademark Law permits damages to be calculated by reference to the right holder’s actual loss, the infringer’s profits, a multiple of a reasonable royalty or, in serious cases of malicious infringement, punitive damages.
Where those amounts cannot be determined, statutory damages were capped at RMB 5 million. The RMB 10 million economic-loss award therefore cannot be explained by the statutory ceiling alone.
The full judgment will be needed to determine whether the court relied on proven profits, another compensatory method or a punitive multiple.
Comment
The case highlights two important questions in contemporary trademark enforcement: how far affiliation or co-branding confusion may extend across different commercial sectors, and how courts should determine the scope of protection where a registered device mark incorporates relatively common or culturally familiar visual elements. Further, the amount and legal basis of the damages award will also be closely examined on appeal, particularly in the absence of a publicly available reasoned judgment. We will continue to monitor the appeal and report on further developments.
The judgment has attracted widespread attention, particularly because the parties operate in apparently different commercial sectors, the disputed device incorporates a relatively common floral motif, and the damages award is substantial. On 2 July 2026, Molly Tea’s founder publicly stated that the company would appeal.
Background and Timeline
During 2024, Chinese tea chain Molly Tea adopted a black geometric four-petal floral device as a prominent brand identifier and used it on store signs, beverage packaging and online channels. The company also applied to register related marks.
Its trademark application No. 81049590 in Class 43, covering catering and accommodation services, was refused. The applied-for mark was considered by the CNIPA similar to earlier cited marks, including an LV four-petal device mark, and likely to cause confusion.
On 15 May 2025, Louis Vuitton Malletier commenced trademark infringement proceedings against the operator of Molly Tea and a Suzhou outlet before the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court.
The First-Instance Judgment
On 29 June 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court delivered its first-instance judgment. According to the publicly available operative orders, the court found that the defendants’ use of the four-petal device infringed the exclusive rights in seven registered LV device marks.
The court ordered the defendants to cease the infringing use. Molly Tea was ordered to pay RMB 10 million for economic loss and RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses, making a total of RMB 10.3 million. The Suzhou outlet was held jointly liable up to RMB 100,000.
Molly Tea was also ordered to publish corrective statements on six official channels, including its website, Weibo, WeChat accounts, Xiaohongshu and Douyin.
The complete reasoned judgment has not yet been officially published. Consequently, the precise evidentiary findings, the treatment of each of the seven registrations and the court’s damages calculation cannot yet be independently confirmed.
Why the Case Attracted Significant Attention
The dispute has attracted attention partly because the parties appear to operate in very different sectors: luxury fashion and freshly made tea beverages. Many commentators questioned whether consumers would genuinely believe that a cup of tea originated from Louis Vuitton.
However, trademark confusion is not necessarily limited to confusion over the actual producer. According to media accounts of the court’s reasoning, consumers might not believe that LV manufactured the beverages, but could nevertheless assume that Molly Tea and LV had launched a co-branded product or had some other commercial relationship.
The case has also prompted debate over the cultural origins of four-petal floral patterns. Some members of the public have compared the devices with traditional Chinese baoxianghua and other historical decorative motifs.
The substantial damages award and the possibility that Molly Tea may need to undertake a nationwide rebranding have further increased the commercial significance of the dispute.
Legal Analysis
The first issue is trademark use. Where a graphic is repeatedly displayed as the dominant identifier on storefronts, cups, packaging and digital platforms, it is likely to be regarded as identifying commercial origin rather than serving merely as decoration.
Under Article 57(2) of the 2019 PRC Trademark Law, using a similar mark on the same goods, or using an identical or similar mark on similar goods or services, constitutes infringement where the use is likely to cause confusion.
In this context, confusion may include mistaken assumptions concerning sponsorship, affiliation, authorisation or co-branding, rather than only a mistaken belief that LV itself produced the beverages.
The dispute should therefore not be reduced to a simple comparison between “handbags and tea”. Public materials concerning Molly Tea’s refused Class 43 application indicate that at least one cited LV registration was relevant to catering-related services.
For any asserted LV marks covering dissimilar goods or services, protection of a registered well-known mark under Article 13 may also be relevant. Since the full judgment is unavailable, it would be premature to conclude that the court relied on the same legal route for all seven registrations.
The traditional-motif argument must also be approached carefully. Trademark law does not give any company ownership of the abstract idea of a four-petal flower or of traditional cultural vocabulary.
Protection attaches to the registered visual configuration and the source-identifying goodwill associated with it. Evidence that a motif is common or historically derived may affect distinctiveness, validity or the breadth of protection, but it is not automatically a defence where the defendant uses a highly similar configuration as a commercial badge of origin.
Similarly, the refusal of Molly Tea’s own trademark application does not, by itself, establish civil infringement or bad faith. It may nevertheless be relevant in showing that the company had notice of the conflicting earlier rights before continuing or expanding its use.
Damages are likely to be a major issue on appeal. Article 63 of the 2019 Trademark Law permits damages to be calculated by reference to the right holder’s actual loss, the infringer’s profits, a multiple of a reasonable royalty or, in serious cases of malicious infringement, punitive damages.
Where those amounts cannot be determined, statutory damages were capped at RMB 5 million. The RMB 10 million economic-loss award therefore cannot be explained by the statutory ceiling alone.
The full judgment will be needed to determine whether the court relied on proven profits, another compensatory method or a punitive multiple.
Comment
The case highlights two important questions in contemporary trademark enforcement: how far affiliation or co-branding confusion may extend across different commercial sectors, and how courts should determine the scope of protection where a registered device mark incorporates relatively common or culturally familiar visual elements. Further, the amount and legal basis of the damages award will also be closely examined on appeal, particularly in the absence of a publicly available reasoned judgment. We will continue to monitor the appeal and report on further developments.