LV sues CNIPA over trademark ruling; Beijing IP Court hearing July 16, 9:30 am, Courtroom 15. Third-party Huang Minyao joined. The suit is a standard legal remedy under Chinese IP law.
Tags:
Source: OT-Team(G), 北京日报
Louis Vuitton Malletier, the luxury group behind the LV brand, has taken its trademark fight to Beijing Intellectual Property Court – and this time, the defendant is the state agency in charge of trademark registration.
According to a public notice from the court, the company has filed an administrative lawsuit against the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The case, docketed as (2026) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 4727, is scheduled for an open hearing on July 16 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15. A third party, Huang Minyao, has also been joined in the proceedings.
The notice does not disclose the specific trademark at issue or the exact grounds of the dispute. But the case has already drawn some chatter online, with a few social media users questioning why LV would sue the administrative agency itself – some calling the move “overreaching” or “testing the limits.”
Legal practitioners say that reading is off base.
“When a party disagrees with a trademark ruling, filing an administrative lawsuit with the CNIPA as the defendant is a standard and lawful remedy under Chinese law,” said Dong Xuemin, a legal professional specializing in intellectual property. She explained that unlike trademark infringement disputes between private parties – which are civil cases – challenges to CNIPA decisions on trademark approval, rejection, revocation, or invalidation fall under administrative proceedings.
Under a Supreme People’s Court interpretation governing trademark authorization and validation cases, such litigation arises when applicants or interested parties contest specific administrative acts by the CNIPA, including refusal of registration, opposition review, cancellation review, or invalidation rulings.
The CNIPA’s statutory functions include trademark examination, registration, and administrative adjudication. “The agency has the authority to issue rulings on registrations, oppositions, and invalidation petitions,” Dong noted. “In administrative litigation, the defendant must be the administrative body that made the contested decision. So in these trademark cases, the CNIPA is properly named as the defendant. The trademark applicant, having a direct stake in the decision, is typically joined as a third party.”
Public records from the China Trademark Office show that between 2024 and 2025, multiple applications for four-leaf clover-shaped marks were filed under Huang Minyao’s name, covering goods and services ranging from semi-processed leather and schoolbags to advertising services. Some of those marks have been registered; others remain pending substantive examination or have been rejected.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which will hear the case, was China’s first specialized IP tribunal. Its first-instance jurisdiction covers technical civil and administrative cases involving patents, plant varieties, integrated circuit layouts, trade secrets, and software, as well as administrative suits against central government departments or local authorities over copyright, trademark, and unfair competition decisions, and civil cases involving recognition of well-known marks.
The case follows a high-profile ruling last month that put a fast-growing Chinese tea chain in the spotlight. In early July, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province found that Shenzhen-based Molly Tea had infringed seven of LV’s registered graphic trademarks through the use of a four-petal symmetrical floral design. The court ordered the tea brand’s parent company to pay RMB 10 million in economic damages and RMB 300,000 in enforcement costs – a total of RMB 10.3 million.
The visual similarity between the marks was central to the ruling: both employ the same four-lobed symmetrical structure, with comparable petal curvature and central void proportions, according to court records.
Zhang Bocheng, founder of Molly Tea, responded on July 2 by saying the company would appeal the decision.
That civil case, now pending appeal, and the new administrative suit in Beijing are legally distinct but stem from the same underlying trademark portfolio. Whether the latest challenge will reshape the scope of LV’s trademark protection in China remains to be seen as the court prepares to hear arguments on Thursday morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment