Lead

A Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court has ordered the Chinese tea chain Molly Tea to pay Louis Vuitton 10.3 million yuan, or about US$1.5 million, after finding that the brand’s four-petal blossom logo infringed the French luxury house’s registered monogram trademarks. The early July ruling requires the Shenzhen-based company to pay within 10 days, with the sum comprising 10 million yuan for economic losses and 300,000 yuan for reasonable litigation expenses, according to reporting by the South China Morning Post.

The court held that Louis Vuitton’s monogram trademark enjoys a high level of global recognition and distinctiveness, and that Molly Tea’s logo closely mirrors the precise geometric and symmetrical structure of the iconic Louis Vuitton flower. Molly Tea has announced its intention to appeal. It has already updated the logo displayed on its mini-program, shifting from a black-and-white version to a coloured one. The court further ordered the company to post a statement on the homepages of its six official accounts—its website and mini-program together with Weibo, WeChat, RedNote and Douyin—to eliminate the negative impact of the infringement. Louis Vuitton declined to comment.

The verdict quickly drew widespread attention on mainland social media. The news was viewed hundreds of millions of times on Weibo, where a hashtag declaring that Molly Tea “lost the lawsuit but won the public’s heart” attracted more than 30 million views. Many users expressed support for the local brand and shared images of similar four-petalled motifs found in Tang dynasty textiles, musical instruments and Suzhou garden architecture, noting that these designs long predate Louis Vuitton’s founding in 1854.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting by the South China Morning Post has approached the story from several complementary angles. One strand centres on the court judgment itself, detailing the damages award, the finding of resemblance between the logos, Molly Tea’s decision to appeal, and the remedial steps already taken or ordered. Another strand examines the public reaction, documenting online support for Molly Tea and the broader conversation the case has triggered about cultural heritage and the limits of trademark protection. A third strand places the dispute in the context of Louis Vuitton’s wider litigation activity in China, noting that the French brand is separately preparing to face China’s trademark regulator in a Beijing intellectual property court and that dozens of judgments, summonses and upcoming hearings involving the company have appeared on official court platforms this year.

Across these accounts the factual core remains consistent: the 10.3 million yuan order, the court’s characterisation of the monogram’s distinctiveness, Molly Tea’s appeal plans, and the ordered public statement. The same outlet has also carried legal commentary and descriptions of online sentiment that frame the commercial dispute as raising questions about how traditional motifs interact with modern intellectual-property rules.

Key Claims

  • Molly Tea was ordered by the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court to pay Louis Vuitton 10.3 million yuan for trademark infringement, including 10 million yuan for economic losses and 300,000 yuan for reasonable litigation expenses, as reported by the South China Morning Post.
  • The court stated that Louis Vuitton’s monogram trademark enjoys a high level of global recognition and distinctiveness, and that Molly Tea’s four-petal blossom logo closely mirrors the precise geometric and symmetrical structure of the iconic Louis Vuitton flower.
  • Molly Tea has announced its intention to appeal and has updated the logo displayed on its mini-program; the court ordered it to post a statement on the homepages of its six official accounts.
  • Online users shared images of similar motifs found in Tang dynasty textiles and Suzhou garden architecture, arguing that such designs precede Louis Vuitton’s founding by centuries.
  • Intellectual property lawyer Wang Jia told the South China Morning Post that trademark law does not grant Louis Vuitton a monopoly over every four-petalled floral motif and that traditional motifs shaped through collective creativity form part of humanity’s shared artistic heritage.
  • Fifty-eight judgments and court summonses involving Louis Vuitton have been published this year on China’s official court announcement platform, with another 11 trademark infringement cases scheduled for hearings; the brand is also set to face China’s trademark regulator in a Chinese intellectual property court.

Perspectives

The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court treated the case as a straightforward trademark matter, emphasising the global recognition of Louis Vuitton’s monogram and the close structural similarity of Molly Tea’s logo, and imposing both monetary damages and a public corrective statement.

Molly Tea has signalled disagreement with the outcome by announcing an appeal while complying with interim visual changes to its mini-program logo.

Intellectual property lawyer Wang Jia of Sichuan Henghexin Law Firm argued that the law protects a mark’s function as an indicator of commercial origin rather than granting exclusivity over every four-petalled floral design, and that traditional motifs belonging to the public domain remain available for anyone to use.

Online users and commentators framed the ruling as an overreach that risks treating longstanding Chinese visual motifs as the private property of a foreign luxury house, pointing to historical precedents in Tang textiles and classical garden architecture and expressing diminished goodwill toward Louis Vuitton.