A court in China has ordered the popular domestic tea chain Molly Tea to pay 10.3 million yuan ($1.5 million) in damages to French luxury giant Louis Vuitton over trademark infringement. The ruling, which concluded that the beverage company’s logo copied Louis Vuitton’s iconic four-petal flower monogram, has sparked a heated online debate regarding intellectual property rights in China.
The decision was handed down by a court in Suzhou, located in the eastern Jiangsu province. In addition to the substantial financial penalty, Molly Tea and its affiliated companies were ordered to cease using the offending logo and issue a formal public apology to Louis Vuitton. According to Chinese state media reports, the China National Intellectual Property Administration had previously rejected multiple trademark applications submitted by Molly Tea, only allowing the registration of the trademark that featured the Chinese characters for "Molly Tea."
The court's verdict has polarized Chinese social media platforms, with a hashtag related to the lawsuit garnering over 400 million views on Weibo and generating tens of thousands of comments. Many netizens rushed to defend Molly Tea, suggesting that the luxury brand's design was itself inspired by historic Chinese artifacts. One Weibo user argued that Western brands are merely taking advantage of the fact that ancient Chinese creators did not file for modern patents. Another user on the lifestyle platform RedNote pointed out that simple geometric shapes have been utilized globally across history, making them common heritage rather than exclusive intellectual property.
Conversely, a significant portion of the online community supported the court's decision, urging defenders of the tea chain to study the law. Supporters emphasized that because Louis Vuitton had legally registered its trademark, the infringement was indisputable. They asserted that the luxury brand was entirely justified in protecting its intellectual property, and that other companies, regardless of their industry, have no right to copy established designs.