Refer China: Suzhou Court Fines Molly Tea $1。5M in LV Trademark Case

Suzhou court orders Molly Tea to pay $1.5M (10.3M yuan) to LV for four-petal flower logo similarity, first-instance on June 29; chain to appeal.

Tags:

Trademark Infringement

Molly Tea

Louis Vuitton

China

Appeal

A well-known Chinese fresh milk tea brand has been handed a landmark compensation ruling for trademark infringement against luxury giant Louis Vuitton Malletier (LV), triggering heated nationwide discussions over intellectual property rights protection in China’s consumer market, the Nanfang Metropolis Daily reported Thursday.

On June 29, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province delivered its first-instance judgment, ruling that Shenzhen-based milk tea operator Molly Tea and one of its franchised stores in Wuzhong District, Suzhou, infringed seven registered four-petal flower graphic trademarks owned by LV.

The total compensation ordered stands at 10.3 million yuan ($1.5 million), consisting of 10 million yuan in economic losses suffered by LV and an additional 300,000 yuan to cover the brand’s legal fees and other reasonable rights-protection expenses. Molly Tea confirmed to media outlets that it will file an appeal with a higher people’s court to contest the verdict.

The core dispute centers on visual similarities between Molly Tea’s core four-petal flower brand emblem and the iconic floral monogram motifs featured across LV’s global product lineup. The French luxury house filed the trademark infringement lawsuit against the milk tea chain with the Suzhou court back in May 2025.

Court filings and industry reports reveal that Molly Tea repeatedly submitted trademark applications featuring various floral graphic marks covering restaurant and food service categories to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). Nearly all of these graphic trademark applications were rejected over similarity risks; the company only successfully registered a mark that combines its Chinese brand name “Molly Tea” without the disputed four-petal flower pattern.

Founded in Shenzhen in 2021, Molly Tea specializes in jasmine-infused fresh milk tea and has achieved explosive nationwide and overseas expansion. As of May 13 this year, the chain operated more than 2,000 physical stores across mainland China, with over 50 overseas outlets launched by June 11.

The high-value ruling quickly went viral across Chinese social media platforms, splitting public opinion into three distinct camps. Some netizens agreed that Molly Tea’s floral logo bears striking visual resemblance to LV’s classic monogram, arguing the chain deliberately copied a world-famous trademark to ride on its premium reputation. Others countered that the two logos carry obvious differences and that the brands operate entirely separate product categories — luxury leather goods versus affordable beverage retail — so consumer confusion is unlikely. A third group raised questions over the originality of LV’s four-petal flower design, suggesting the pattern may draw inspiration from traditional Chinese cultural floral elements that belong to the public domain.

Kang Lixia, a partner at Beijing Standzer IP Law Firm, noted that Molly Tea retains its legal right to appeal and submit supplementary evidence to higher courts. She clarified that while traditional cultural motifs are freely available for public inheritance and creative use, China’s trademark system is built around the fundamental first-to-file principle.

Under the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, trademark ownership and exclusive rights are primarily granted to the party that first completes formal registration with CNIPA, rather than the party that first uses a design commercially.

Liu Bin, another intellectual property attorney from Beijing Zhongwen Law Firm, offered further legal context. He acknowledged that traditional cultural elements should remain accessible for creative inheritance by all industries, yet commercial brands must avoid adopting visual signs that create confusing similarity to third parties’ pre-registered trademarks — even when operating in unrelated business sectors.

Industry legal experts added that LV’s four-petal floral graphics qualify as well-known trademarks eligible for cross-category protection under Chinese law. Even though leather goods and milk tea fall into dissimilar commodity classes, unauthorized imitation of a registered famous trademark that risks misleading consumers constitutes actionable infringement, regardless of industry boundaries.

Source:

Editor: Crystal H