July 2026

English Translation of the Judgment: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea — Trademark Infringement Dispute

English Translation of the Judgment: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea — Trademark Infringement DisputeBy •

Louis Vuitton Malletier (hereinafter referred to as “Louis Vuitton”), a globally renowned luxury goods manufacturer headquartered in France, designed and introduced in 1896 a figurative mark consisting of the “LV” device, four-leaf clover motifs and other elements. Louis Vuitton has registered and owns multiple trademarks in China, including Trademark Registration Nos. 61812517A, 68717216A, 1106302, 1111910, 1112498, 52161177, and 68725763A, among others. The designated goods and services of these trademarks cover Classes 3, 4, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 43.

English Translation of the Judgment: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea — Trademark Infringement Dispute More »

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026)

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026)By •

The Guangzhou Internet Court held that AI detection reports may be admitted as evidence. However, because the underlying detection standards, algorithms, and methodologies remain largely undisclosed, such reports have only limited probative value and cannot, by themselves, establish that an image was AI-generated. Instead, AI detection reports must be corroborated by other evidence before a court may conclude that a disputed image is highly likely to have been generated by AI.

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026) More »

Suzhou Court Awards Louis Vuitton RMB 10.3 Million Against Molly Tea: The Law Was Straightforward, but the Public Reaction Was Not (Judgment of 2026)

Suzhou Court Awards Louis Vuitton RMB 10.3 Million Against Molly Tea: The Law Was Straightforward, but the Public Reaction Was Not (Judgment of 2026)By •

From a legal perspective, I do not find the court’s finding of trademark infringement particularly surprising. First, Louis Vuitton’s four-petal flower device has been used for decades as one of the signature elements of its Monogram collection and is protected by multiple registered trademarks in China. As a well-known trademark element with strong distinctiveness, it is entitled to broad protection under the Chinese Trademark Law.

Suzhou Court Awards Louis Vuitton RMB 10.3 Million Against Molly Tea: The Law Was Straightforward, but the Public Reaction Was Not (Judgment of 2026) More »

Scroll to Top