Trademark

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 »

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 »

Henan High Court: How Criminal Enforcement Helped Sanofi Obtain RMB 1.8 Million in Trademark Damages (2025)

Henan High Court: How Criminal Enforcement Helped Sanofi Obtain RMB 1.8 Million in Trademark Damages (2025)By •

For brand owners, the lesson is simple: criminal enforcement is not only a tool for stopping infringement. In appropriate cases, it may be the most effective way to obtain the sales evidence necessary to support meaningful damages claims in subsequent civil litigation.

Henan High Court: How Criminal Enforcement Helped Sanofi Obtain RMB 1.8 Million in Trademark Damages (2025) More »

Supreme People’s Court: Industry Perception Prevails in Determining Identical Goods — “Maple Leaf” Case Retrial Reversal (Judgment of January 29, 2026)

Supreme People’s Court: Industry Perception Prevails in Determining Identical Goods — “Maple Leaf” Case Retrial Reversal (Judgment of January 29, 2026)By •

This judgment sends several important signals: While the Classification remains a key reference, it is not determinative, especially where non-standard product names are involved; Courts will increasingly rely on real-world industry understanding to define the scope of goods.

Supreme People’s Court: Industry Perception Prevails in Determining Identical Goods — “Maple Leaf” Case Retrial Reversal (Judgment of January 29, 2026) More »

Shanghai Pudong Court Issues First Judgment Defining Liability Boundaries for User-Induced AI Hallucinations (Judgment issued on October 31, 2025)

Shanghai Pudong Court Issues First Judgment Defining Liability Boundaries for User-Induced AI Hallucinations (Judgment issued on October 31, 2025)By •

Editor’s Note: This case is notable because it shows how courts are beginning to deal with AI “hallucinations” in real commercial settings. Instead of looking only at what the AI said, the Shanghai Pudong Court paid close attention to how the conversation happened, what the user repeatedly asked, and what safeguards the platform had in place. The decision makes clear that when misleading AI outputs are driven by strategic user prompting, and the model provider has acted reasonably, courts may be reluctant to impose liability—offering practical guidance for AI platforms, brand owners, and their counsel.

Shanghai Pudong Court Issues First Judgment Defining Liability Boundaries for User-Induced AI Hallucinations (Judgment issued on October 31, 2025) More »

Key Takeaways from China’s Draft Amendments to the Trademark Law

Key Takeaways from China’s Draft Amendments to the Trademark LawBy •

A Side-by-Side Comparison of Core Provisions Note: This article is based on the draft amendments released for public comment. There is currently no official English translation. All the translations are for reference only. 1. Prohibition of Abuse of Trademark Rights Current Law Draft Amendment Article 7 In the application for registration or use of a trademark, the principle of good faith

Key Takeaways from China’s Draft Amendments to the Trademark Law More »

Guangzhou Huangpu Court: Mixed Sales Under the Same Product Link Constitute Trademark Infringement (Judgment issued March 14, 2025)

Guangzhou Huangpu Court: Mixed Sales Under the Same Product Link Constitute Trademark Infringement (Judgment issued March 14, 2025)By •

Mengchun’s Comments Infringers are becoming more sophisticated. This case illustrates how selling self-branded goods alongside well-known branded products under the same online listing can constitute trademark infringement. The court also found other “free-riding” tactics to be unfair competition. The judgment provides useful guidance for enforcing brand rights and addressing covert infringement. Key IssueDoes selling self-branded goods alongside well-known branded goods

Guangzhou Huangpu Court: Mixed Sales Under the Same Product Link Constitute Trademark Infringement (Judgment issued March 14, 2025) More »

Scroll to Top