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

Mengchun’s Comments

Two aspects of this case may be subject to misunderstanding in media reports.

First, this case does not concern the application of well-known trademark protection under Article 13 of the Trademark Law. The court’s analysis focused on whether the relevant goods and services constituted similar goods or services under the Trademark Law.

With respect to Louis Vuitton’s Trademark No. 61812517A, the court recognized that cafés and restaurants designated under Class 43 and milk tea and tea beverages under Class 30 belong to different classes and different similar groups under the Classification of Similar Goods and Services. However, the court held that their core business functions both involve providing beverages and related goods or services to consumers. The two categories have a close relationship in terms of consumer groups, functions, and purposes. In addition, based on the evidence submitted by Louis Vuitton, Molly White Company launched its coffee business in April 2026. Therefore, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that the relevant goods and services were not similar.

Second, the court did address whether the trademarks at issue consisted of elements in the public domain. The defendants argued that the four-leaf floral motif and four-point star motif were commonly used motifs in traditional culture and modern creative works and therefore possessed weak distinctiveness.

The court held that, although four-leaf floral motifs have been widely used and may convey meanings such as good luck, the trademarks at issue had undergone specific design, including details of the lines, curvature, and methods of intersection. They were not merely simple geometric figures or combinations of elements in the public domain, but reflected the designer’s concepts and expression.

The court further noted that the four-point star motif was originally part of Louis Vuitton’s Monogram composite trademark and constituted one of the original design elements of that trademark. Through the use and reputation acquired by the Monogram composite trademark, the four-point star motif itself had obtained a certain level of recognition. After registration of the trademarks at issue, Louis Vuitton used them in promotional and business activities, including catering-related activities. Through such use, the trademarks acquired a certain degree of distinctiveness and recognition, embodied consumer perception and commercial reputation, and were capable of distinguishing the source of goods or services.

Case Source

First Instance: Civil Judgment of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, Case No. (2025) Su 05 Min Chu No. 617

Source: LV起诉茉莉奶白判赔1030万

Case Summary

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.

In 2024, Louis Vuitton discovered that Shenzhen Molly White Catering Management Co., Ltd. (the operator of the “Molly Tea” brand, hereinafter referred to as “Molly Tea”), had extensively used a four-petal floral device highly similar to the disputed trademarks through various online channels, including its official website, WeChat official account, WeChat mini program, Weibo, Xiaohongshu, and Douyin, as well as through offline channels including directly operated and franchised stores nationwide.

The accused signs were used on various products and services, including milk tea cups, paper packaging bags, insulated bags, sachets, scarves, hats, earrings, phone cases, scented candles, red envelope bags, and other items.

On August 13 and August 22, 2024, Louis Vuitton sent two cease-and-desist letters to Molly Tea, requesting that it cease the alleged infringement. After confirming receipt of the letters, Molly Tea not only failed to discontinue the alleged trademark infringement, but instead continued to launch beverage cup packaging and peripheral products that were even more similar to Louis Vuitton’s registered trademarks and products.

Dongxia Beverage Shop in Wuzhong Economic Development Zone, Suzhou City (hereinafter referred to as “Dongxia Beverage Shop”), as a franchise store of Molly Tea, also prominently used the accused signs in its store decoration, product packaging, and promotional materials.

Louis Vuitton subsequently filed a lawsuit with Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, requesting that Molly Tea and Dongxia Beverage Shop be ordered to cease infringement, compensate for economic losses of RMB 50 million and reasonable expenses incurred for rights enforcement of RMB 400,000, and publish a statement to eliminate the adverse impact.

Judgment

The court of first instance found that the registered trademarks at issue include the following:

Trademark No. 61812517A, which was approved for registration on December 21, 2022, is designated for use on goods and services in Classes 3, 16, 24, 34 and 43. The goods in Class 3 include cleaning preparations, fragrances, reed diffusers, air fresheners, incense, sachets for perfuming linen, and other goods. The goods in Class 16 include labels made of paper or cardboard, envelopes, paper or cardboard boxes, cardboard hat boxes, paper bags or plastic bags for packaging, and other goods. The services in Class 43 include bar services, cafés, cafeterias, restaurants, private chef services, catering services, and banquet catering services. The registration is valid from December 21, 2022 to December 20, 2032.

Trademark No. 68717216A, which was approved for registration on September 28, 2023, is designated for use on goods in Class 21, including plates, drinking glasses, cups, sports water bottles, candle holders, candlesticks, and other goods. The registration is valid from September 28, 2023 to September 27, 2033.

Trademark No. 1106302, which was approved for registration on September 21, 1997, is designated for use on goods in Class 18, including travel bags, travelling cases, travel accessories, garment bags, handbags, shopping bags, key cases, and other goods. The registration is valid from September 21, 1997 to September 20, 2027.

Trademark No. 1111910, which was approved for registration on September 28, 2017, is designated for use on goods in Class 14, including jewellery, rings, earrings, bracelets, and other goods. The registration is valid from September 28, 2017 to September 27, 2027.

Trademark No. 1112498, which was approved for registration on September 28, 2017, is designated for use on goods in Class 25, including shawls, square scarves, headscarves, hats, and other goods. The registration is valid from September 28, 1997 to September 27, 2027.

Trademark No. 52161177, which was approved for registration on October 14, 2022, is designated for use on goods in Class 9, including cases for smartphones, covers for smartphones, and other goods. The registration is valid from October 14, 2022 to October 13, 2032.

Trademark No. 68725763A, which was approved for registration on November 14, 2023, is designated for use on goods in Class 4, including scented candles, candles, and other goods. The registration is valid from November 14, 2023 to November 13, 2033.

Regarding the use of the trademarks

In November 2022, Louis Vuitton’s first restaurant in China, “THE HALL” restaurant officially opened at the Louis Vuitton House Chengdu Taikoo Li boutique. The restaurant provides afternoon tea and dinner services, and its interior design features Louis Vuitton’s Objets Nomades travel and home collection. Articles published on its WeChat official account displayed food images that were identical to the designs or shapes of the trademarks at issue. The restaurant also established a presence on the Meituan platform, where the merchant album displayed menu promotional pages. Food uploaded by consumers in reviews, such as pastries and beverages such as coffee latte art, incorporated the patterns or shapes of the trademarks at issue.

On July 2, 2025, Louis Vuitton’s “Louis Hao” LV Café (“LV Café”) opened in Shanghai. The exterior façade of the restaurant, tableware and cups, coasters, coffee latte art, food products and their designs incorporated the patterns or shapes of the trademarks at issue.

The Louis Vuitton China official website displayed a chocolate boutique and chocolate designs. Some chocolates incorporated the designs of the trademarks at issue. The website also promoted and sold fashion handbags, small leather goods, travel products, fashion accessories, fine jewellery, ready-to-wear collections, footwear, perfumes, and beauty products, among which certain products incorporated the patterns or designs of the trademarks at issue.

Louis Vuitton published introductions and promotional materials regarding the chocolate boutique through its official Xiaohongshu and Weibo accounts. The official Xiaohongshu account also displayed Louis Vuitton’s New Year red envelopes, which incorporated the trademarks at issue.

By January 2025, Louis Vuitton, through Louis Vuitton (China) Commercial Sales Co., Ltd., had established Louis Vuitton leather goods retail boutiques in 32 cities in China, including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Ningbo, Harbin, Dalian, and Guiyang, where multiple figurative marks, including the four-point star motif, were displayed and used.

Facts regarding the reputation and recognition of the trademarks

Louis Vuitton, as a global partner of the NBA, was the first official provider of the championship trophy case for the 2020 NBA Finals. In 2022, Louis Vuitton launched its LV advertising campaign for the Qatar World Cup 2022, and it became a sponsor of the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.

From May 31 to August 30, 2011, Louis Vuitton held the large-scale exhibition “Louis Vuitton: A Journey Through Time” at the National Museum of China.

Louis Vuitton promoted its LV-related products and restaurants through online platforms including Kuaishou, Douyin, Xiaohongshu, WeChat, and Weibo, as well as through various well-known magazines, including Vogue, COSMO China, Hongxiu Magazine, Marie Claire, ELLE, The World of Fashion, and Modern Weekly.

The LV brand ranked No. 14, No. 14, and No. 11 respectively in the Interbrand Best Global Brands Rankings from 2022 to 2024. In the Kantar BrandZ Most Valuable Global Brands Rankings, the LV brand ranked No. 10, No. 8, and No. 12 globally in 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively.

The Hurun Report — Chinese High-Net-Worth Individuals’ Brand Preference Report showed that from 2022 to 2024, the LV brand consistently ranked among the top choices of Chinese high-net-worth individuals for preferred fashion and accessory brands.

Multiple invalidation request decisions, including the China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board Decision No. 商评字[2022]第329530号, as well as Decision No. 18511 refusing registration, recognized that Louis Vuitton’s Trademark No. 1106302 had acquired a certain level of reputation among relevant consumers through long-term use and promotion.

The Administrative Judgment No. (2023) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 3464 held that, before September 16, 2019, Louis Vuitton’s Trademark No. 1106302 had already achieved a relatively high level of reputation in relation to Class 18 goods such as handbags and other luggage products.

The Civil Judgment No. (2025) Su 01 Min Zhong No. 16039 held that Louis Vuitton’s Chengdu “THE HALL” restaurant provided and sold desserts designed in the shape of the four-point star motif, and that the restaurant prominently used the textual and figurative elements of the trademark in its interior decoration, tableware used for catering services, and specially designed food products. One of the trademarks involved in that case was Trademark No. 61812517A.

The Civil Judgments of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Cases No. (2018) Su 05 Min Chu Nos. 1637, 1638 and 1643 held that the accused signs, including the four-point star motif used on jewellery products, infringed Louis Vuitton’s Trademark No. 1111910.

Facts regarding the alleged infringement

The defendant company was established on May 15, 2020, with its business scope including investment in and operation management of food and related physical store chains. Dongxia Beverage Shop was established on August 3, 2023, with its business scope including catering services.

The alleged infringing acts asserted by Louis Vuitton include Molly Tea’s production, promotion, and sale of products bearing the accused signs and the provision of corresponding services, as well as Dongxia Beverage Shop’s prominent use of the accused signs in the catering services it provided and on the accused products it sold.

The evidence preservation concerning the alleged online infringement includes the following:

On July 31, 2024, Shenzhen Notary Office conducted notarized evidence preservation of the webpage of Molly Tea’s official website “www.mollytea.com”. The left side of the navigation bar on the homepage displayed “茉莉奶白 MollyTea”. The advertising section at the top of the webpage displayed two products, namely “Molly Tea” and “A Gardenia Flower”. The accused sign was used on the middle section of the cup body of the Molly Tea product. The advertising slogan stated that “the signature jasmine series has achieved annual sales exceeding 690,000 cups”. The “Core Advantages” section displayed images of the Molly Tea product and the storefront signage, where the storefront signage used the words “茉莉奶白”.

In the “Product Display” section, the accused sign was used on various products, including Molly Tea, Fen Mo Zhen Wang, Fen Mo Matcha, Gardenia White Tea, Osmanthus Longjing, Osmanthus Longjing Sweet Wine, Beauty, Qian Tao Youyou, Happy Jasmine Coconut, Happy Gardenia Coconut, Magnolia Oat, A Jasmine Flower, Jasmine Oat, Gardenia Oat, Qian Tao Weiyang, Magnolia, Dancong, Magnolia Jinxuan, Gardenia Jinxuan, Gardenia Green Grape, Ruyu Agarwood Scent Pendant Set, Lanxiang Xiaotaohong, Mango Doukou, Jasmine Yangzhi Ganlu, and Gardenia Green Grape (cheese version), among others.

The brand introduction under the “About Us” section stated: “Molly Tea originated in Shenzhen and is an oriental new tea beverage brand pursuing fragrance. Inspired by the four white flowers of the East, with jasmine as the leading element, we select high-mountain tea leaves and make tea through flower-inspired tea-making techniques, focusing on Chinese tea with jasmine fragrance.”

Certain product images in promotional articles published under the “News Center” section also used the accused sign.

On July 30, 2024, Shenzhen Notary Office conducted evidence preservation of relevant content on the WeChat application.

The verified entity of the “Molly Tea” mini program was Molly Tea. The accused sign was used as the profile picture. The milk tea cups displayed in the group meal products of Molly Tea used the accused sign on the cup bodies. Consumers could browse products and place orders through the mini program, including products bearing the accused sign.

The profile image of the “Molly Tea” WeChat official account used the accused sign. Promotional articles published on the WeChat official account contained images of milk tea cups, milk tea packaging paper bags, and other items bearing the accused sign.

The profile image of the “Molly Tea” WeChat Channels account used the accused sign. Multiple store fronts displayed in the videos used the words “茉莉奶白”, and the interior decorations of the stores used the accused sign.

The video titled “HELLO, New York Molly Tea Overseas First Store” showed that the store front used the words “茉莉奶白”; the interior decoration of the store used the accused sign; the displayed sachets used the accused sign; and the candle fragrance designs were in the shape of the accused sign.

On July 30, 2024, Shenzhen Notary Office conducted notarized evidence preservation of the relevant pages of the Douyin account “茉莉奶白”.

The profile image of the Douyin account used the accused sign, and the account introduction indicated that the brand had 636 offline stores. A large number of product promotional videos posted by the Douyin account used the accused sign.

For example:

The video titled “May New Product, Osmanthus Longjing!” showed that Osmanthus Longjing, Osmanthus Longjing Sweet Wine milk tea cups, packaging bags, and sachets used the accused sign;

The video titled “Molly Tea × SharkGirl Collaboration Is Here” showed that milk tea cups and other items used the accused sign;

The video titled “Molly Tea Top 5 Most Popular Drinks, Which One Would You Pick?” showed that Gardenia White Tea milk tea cups and Fen Mo Zhen Wang milk tea cups used the accused sign;

The video titled “What Are Included in the Entire Pomelo Flower Series Merchandise Collection? Watch This Video and You Will Know” showed that milk tea cups and smartphone cases used the accused sign;

The video titled “Tell Me!! You Also Think Molly Tea’s Garfield Collaboration Is Cute!” showed that milk tea cups used the accused sign;

The video titled “Unique Purple, Integrating Collaboration Brand Symbols” displayed candle fragrance products designed in the shape of the accused sign.

On July 31, 2024, Shenzhen Notary Office conducted notarized evidence preservation of the relevant pages of the Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白”.

The profile image of the Xiaohongshu account used the accused sign. A large number of product promotional articles published by the account contained images using the accused sign.

For example:

• The milk tea cup shown in the article titled “Longjing Returns! Floral Sweet Wine” used the accused sign;
• The interior decoration of the store shown in the article titled “This Store Will Say Goodbye to Everyone Tomorrow” used the accused sign;
• The handbag shown in the article titled “Your Thanksgiving Gift, Please Check and Receive” used the accused sign;
• The milk tea cup shown in the article titled “Made Some Collaboration Merchandise” used the accused sign;
• The milk tea cup shown in the article titled “Meow, Molly Tea Cat Villa Opens Tomorrow” used the accused sign;
• The milk tea cup, packaging paper bag, and smartphone case shown in the article titled “Who Likes This Tiger-Inspired Phone Case?” used the accused sign;
• The sachets shown in the article titled “Gifts Prepared for Friends in Wuxi, All Here!” used the accused sign;
• The collaborative travel cup, collaborative accessories including baseball caps or scarves, and collaborative earphone bags shown in the article titled “This Collaboration Is Really Wild!” used the accused sign.

On July 31, 2024, Shenzhen Notary Office conducted notarized evidence preservation of the relevant pages of the Weibo account “茉莉奶白 MollyTea”. A large number of product promotional articles posted on the Weibo account contained images using the accused sign. For example, the milk tea cup shown in the article titled “Meow, Molly Tea Cat Villa Opens Tomorrow” used the accused sign; the handbag shown in the article titled “Your Thanksgiving Gift, Please Check and Receive” used the accused sign; the cup body of the milk tea cup shown in the article titled “Tianci Yibing, Daoye Kexing” used the accused sign; the scented candle products were designed in the shape of the accused sign; and certain store decorations displayed in the article also used the accused sign. In addition, the collaborative travel cups, collaborative accessories such as baseball caps or scarves, and collaborative earphone bags shown in the article titled “This Collaboration Is Really Wild!” used the accused sign.

On September 29, 2024, timestamp-based evidence preservation showed that the profile image of the WeChat official account “茉莉奶白” used the accused sign, and images of milk tea cups and other items in the article titled “Pure Upgrade! Giving Away 100,000 Free Cups” used the accused sign. The milk tea cup shown in the WeChat Channels video titled “Osmanthus in Mid-Autumn, When the Autumn Moon Is Full, Good Things Begin to Grow” used the accused sign.

The profile image of the Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白” used the accused sign. Images of milk tea cups, packaging bags, and other products in articles including “Osmanthus in the Moon, When the Autumn Moon Is Full, Good Things Begin to Grow”, “Jasmine, Pure as Before”, “The Number One Fragrance in the World”, “Pure Jasmine, Buy One Get One Free”, and “100,000 Free Molly Tea Products!” used the accused sign.

The profile image of the Douyin account “茉莉奶白” used the accused sign. The milk tea cups and packaging bags displayed in articles or videos including “The Number One Fragrance in the World” and “Jasmine Upgrade, A Pure Tribute” used the accused sign.

The profile image of the Weibo account “茉莉奶白 MollyTea” used the accused sign, and images contained in multiple promotional articles used the accused sign.

On December 2, 2024, timestamp-based evidence preservation showed that Molly Tea used the accused sign or designs thereof in articles or videos promoting its collaborative product “Little Snake Jasmine Earrings”.

On the Xiaohongshu platform, users posted comments including: “LV collaboration?” “I thought LV collaborated with The Legend of the White Snake.” “I thought this was a Bulgari and LV collaboration.” “I thought it was an LV collaboration.” “Isn’t this LV?”

On July 22, 2025, timestamp-based evidence preservation showed that the profile image of the Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白” used the accused sign, and the accused sign or designs thereof appeared in numerous promotional articles for products or stores.

For example, the accused sign was used on the cap of a perfume bottle shown in the article titled “Using Chess as the Guide, Each Releases Its Own Fragrance”. In the article titled “Walking Together with Food and Fun”, the store front, interior decoration, and packaging boxes of the collaborative store “食髦小馆” promoted therein used the accused sign.

The Xiaohongshu account Nanxiang Steamed Bun Restaurant (“南翔馒头殿”) published an article titled “Review of 食髦: Creative Presentation, Limited Brunch”, in which the promotional boards and exterior decorations of Nanxiang Steamed Bun Restaurant used the accused sign. The article also stated that Molly Tea and Nanxiang Steamed Bun Restaurant had launched a cross-over collaboration.

The profile image of the Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白（上海）” used the accused sign. Images in numerous product promotional articles contained the accused sign. Among them, the shoulder bag, collaborative crossbody bag, and collaborative bags shown in the articles titled “The FAKEROOM Collaboration Bag Looks So Good Like This” and “FAKEROOM Collaboration Bags New Release” used the accused sign.

The profile image of the Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白（淮安扬州店）” used the accused sign. The scented product shown in the article titled “Bring Molly Tea into the Office!” used the accused sign.

Molly Tea fragrance products posted by Xiaohongshu users “心里觉得今天比昨天还…” and “yoyo” also used the accused sign.

On March 23, 2026, timestamp-based evidence preservation showed that the plaid square scarf promoted in the article titled “Basic for School Opening, Accessories Should Not Be Basic” posted by the Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白（上海）” used the accused sign.

Images uploaded by multiple Xiaohongshu influencer accounts showed that collaborative handbags used the accused sign.

Facts regarding the evidence preservation of the alleged offline infringement

On July 25, 2024, the entrusted agent of Louis Vuitton, together with notaries and staff members of Shanghai Xuhui Notary Office, visited the store located at B1 Floor, Building A, Longfor Suzhou Dongwu Paradise, No. 179 Dongwu South Road, Wuzhong District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, where the store sign displayed the words “茉莉奶白”. At the site, they purchased one cup of “Molly Tea”, one cup of “Magnolia Matcha”, one cup of “Jasmine Lemon Tea”, one cup of “Fen Mo Zhen Wang”, and one “insulated bag”, and obtained one sales receipt and several promotional gifts.

According to the photographs attached to the notarization certificate, the store front displayed the words “茉莉奶白”, and the side promotional materials displayed the slogan “Upon seeing jasmine, happiness arises”.

The cup bodies of the star products introduced on the in-store product promotional boards, including Molly Tea and “A Jasmine Flower”, used the accused sign. The promotional board for the Garfield collaboration set used the accused sign. The cup body of the Osmanthus product used the accused sign. The milk tea cups from the Garfield collaboration used the accused sign. The store wall decorations used the accused sign. The packaging paper bags used the accused sign. The cup bodies of multiple products displayed on the product screens used the accused sign. The milk tea cups displayed for products such as Magnolia and Ya Shi Xiang did not show use of the accused sign. The upper parts of the large straw box and cup lid box displayed the words “茉莉奶白”. Packaging paper bags were displayed on the store counter and pickup rack.

On September 29, 2024, the entrusted agent of Louis Vuitton, together with notaries and staff members of Shanghai Xuhui Notary Office, visited the same store mentioned above and purchased two cups of “Jasmine Milk Tea” and one “My Little Pony Collaboration Milk Tea Cup Set”. They obtained two sales receipts and two paper bags at the site.

According to the photographs attached to the notarization certificate, the plastic cups and packaging boxes displayed on the promotional board for the “My Little Pony Collaboration Milk Tea Cup Set” used the accused sign.

On December 25, 2024, sub-entrusted agent appointed by Louis Vuitton, together with a notary from Guangzhou Nanyue Notary Office, visited the premises displaying the words “茉莉奶白” located at Building 8, 3rd Floor, Bao’an Group First Industrial City, No. 121 Chuangye Second Road, Bao’an District, Shenzhen City, within “Bao Yi Creative Park” on Xin’an Third Road, Bao’an District, Shenzhen. The agent obtained a catalogue from the staff.

Accompanied by the staff, the entrusted agent and the notary visited the premises displaying the words “茉莉奶白” on the third floor of Building D4, conducted discussions with the staff, and used the recording equipment of the notary office to record the on-site conversation.

Subsequently, the entrusted agent and the notary visited the “茉莉奶白” store on the first floor of the building, purchased two cups of beverages, and obtained one receipt and several items.

According to the photographs attached to the notarization certificate, a large number of Molly Tea products and peripheral products displayed at the above two locations used the accused sign. The store front, interior and exterior decorations, and promotional boards of the “茉莉奶白” store used the accused sign, and the cup bodies of the handled mugs displayed inside the store also used the accused sign.

On January 22, 2025, Shanghai Xuhui Notary Office notarized the process by which the entrusted agent of Louis Vuitton operated a mobile phone.

The agent logged into WeChat and entered the “茉莉奶白” mini program, where, acting as an ordinary consumer, the agent placed online orders for one “100-Store Celebration Limited Edition Insulated Cup Set” and one “100-Store Celebration Limited Edition Toast Bag Set”.

On the same day, the notaries and staff members accompanied the entrusted agent to “Molly Tea (Shanghai iAPM Store)” located at Shop LG2-275, Shanghai iAPM Mall, No. 999 Huaihai Middle Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, to collect the ordered products. They obtained one sales receipt and one electronic invoice.

After returning to the notary office, photographs were taken of the purchased products and sales receipt, which were sealed and preserved and then delivered to the entrusted agent for retention.

According to the photographs attached to the notarization certificate, the store front displayed “茉莉奶白” and “MollyTea”. Multiple product cup bodies displayed on the electronic screens inside the store used the accused sign. Multiple sets promoted on the promotional boards used the accused sign, including the insulated cup set, city collaboration refrigerator magnet set, and New Year red envelope set.

On January 24, 2025, a notary and a notary assistant, together with the entrusted agent of Louis Vuitton, visited the “茉莉奶白” store located at B106-1, Basement Level 1, a shopping mall on Zhonghang Road, Futian District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province. Using a mobile phone, they scanned the QR code on site, placed orders, and completed payment. They obtained four beverages, two boxes of red envelopes, and three shopping paper bags.

According to the photographs attached to the notarization certificate, the store front used the words “茉莉奶白”, the store decoration used the accused sign, and multiple products or packaging paper bags displayed in the store used the accused sign.

Regarding the cease-and-desist letters and facts relating to likelihood of confusion

On August 13 and August 22, 2024, Louis Vuitton sent two cease-and-desist letters to Molly Tea, alleging that the signs used on Molly Tea’s ordering mini program, beverage cups, store decorations, paper bags, and peripheral products, including fabric bags, earphone cases, smartphone cases, boxes, sachets, scarves, hats, and scented candles, as well as other services or products, were highly similar to Louis Vuitton’s trademarks and would cause relevant consumers to be confused or mistaken.

Louis Vuitton requested that Molly Tea cease the infringement and compensate for the losses incurred. Molly Tea confirmed receipt of the above-mentioned cease-and-desist letters.

Facts relating to confusion

According to multiple timestamp certification certificates, on September 29, 2024, Louis Vuitton conducted evidence preservation of user opinions and comments posted on platforms including Douyin, Weibo, and Xiaohongshu.

A Douyin user “桃桃的小资生活” posted a video featuring Molly Tea products with the accused sign displayed on the body of the milk tea cup and added the caption: “Molly Tea’s new LV-style look. It is so beautiful; this time it is not just a little bit more luxurious.”

Douyin users including “人间清醒许愿池”, “一口喝不完”, “粒粒在这里”, and “贰柒是猪” posted videos of Molly Tea products with the accused sign displayed on the milk tea cup bodies and packaging bags, with captions respectively stating:”Molly Tea has changed into a new look! It feels very LV-like and quite sophisticated!” “Louis Vuitton! You got me again!” “Molly Tea has really turned white! How can it not be considered an LV-style product?” “Molly Tea! Louis Vuitton! Molly Tea’s new look.”

Weibo users posted content showing Molly Tea products or packaging bags bearing the accused sign, with comments including: “Molly Tea fooled me!!! This cup looks so LV!!!” “Molly Tea, I almost didn’t recognize you. Is this a collaboration with LV? The monogram pattern.” “I feel that Molly Tea’s sense of luxury comes from LV.” “How did Molly Tea make itself look like LV?” “Has Molly Tea changed its business? Or is it an LV-style product?” “This white packaging of Molly Tea looks so much like LV.”

Xiaohongshu users posted content showing Molly Tea products, packaging bags, or smartphone cases bearing the accused sign, with comments including: “Molly Tea wants to become the LV of the milk tea industry.” “This new design looks very similar to LV.” “Is this a collaboration between Molly Tea and LV?!” “It looks too similar to LV’s monogram pattern.” “Molly Tea, your attempt to ride on this trend is pretty effective.”

On January 24, 2025, Louis Vuitton conducted evidence preservation of Xiaohongshu users’ posts featuring Molly Tea red envelope bags bearing the accused sign and related comments. The comments included: “I thought it was LV.” “I almost mistook it for an LV red envelope.” “I thought you bought several LV bags and pairs of shoes.”

On July 23 and July 24, 2025, Louis Vuitton conducted evidence preservation of user opinions and comments on relevant media platforms.

Comments from Xiaohongshu users included: “The cup looks good. Why does it feel simple, luxurious, and familiar? It turns out because it copied LV.” “Molly Tea looks like Louis Vuitton.” “Honestly, I almost thought it was a Louis Vuitton franchise.” “A milk tea brand playing on the edge.” “Is this a collaboration between Molly Tea and LV!!”

A large number of Douyin videos contained captions such as: “I thought I was holding a cup from Louis Vuitton.” “Molly Tea! Louis Vuitton!! Anyone who loves good-looking things will love it.”

Weibo also contained numerous captions such as: “Molly Tea is definitely copying LV.” “And now Molly Tea is paying tribute to LV.”

On May 7, 2026, Louis Vuitton conducted evidence preservation of articles and videos posted on Xiaohongshu and Douyin accounts.

A Xiaohongshu user “yjf” published an article regarding “Molly Tea”, stating:”Chanel-style tweed, LV four-leaf clover, and a youthful Miu Miu style — one cup of milk tea brings together the visual elements of luxury brands.”

A Douyin account “湖州爱山银泰城” posted a video showing Molly Tea products with the accused sign displayed on the cup body, accompanied by the caption: “Is this Molly Tea or Louis Vuitton? The new packaging upgrade looks so good.”

A Douyin account “樱桃传” posted a video showing Molly Tea products with the accused sign displayed on the cup body, accompanied by the caption: “Honestly! I thought I was holding a cup from Louis Vuitton.”

Comparison of the Marks

Louis Vuitton argued that the trademarks at issue consist primarily of a single floral pattern composed of four solid diamond-shaped petals and a hollow center dot. The accused signs also consist primarily of a single floral pattern composed of four solid diamond-shaped petals and a hollow center dot. Their constituent elements, composition features, and overall visual effects are substantially identical to those of the trademarks at issue. When observed in isolation, the accused signs and the trademarks at issue constitute similar marks.

The accused signs have caused relevant consumers to become confused or mistaken as to the source of the goods, or to believe that there is a specific connection between Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton. Therefore, the accused signs infringe Louis Vuitton’s exclusive trademark rights.

Molly Tea and Dongxia Beverage Shop argued that the four curved petals of the accused signs represent the floral forms of the four oriental white tea flowers, namely jasmine, magnolia, gardenia, and osmanthus. The curved shapes represent the blooming posture of these four oriental white flowers. The graphic formed by the four partially circumferential sections of externally tangent circles in the center of the accused signs was derived from the original “plump white jasmine flower” design, which was formed through a flattening adjustment of four evenly arranged flowers.

They argued that the accused signs are substantially different from the Monogram pattern from which the trademarks at issue originated. The petal designs of the two marks are different. The trademarks at issue constitute only a single graphic element within the Monogram pattern, consisting of four slender petals, where the curves of the petals transition from straight lines to curves. In contrast, the curves of the accused signs continuously extend to the top, and the angles of the curves are also different.

Molly Tea and Dongxia Beverage Shop further argued that they had no subjective intention to ride on the reputation of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks at issue, that the signs did not constitute similar marks under the Trademark Law, and that no confusion had occurred among consumers or relevant members of the public in practice.

Facts relating to damages calculations

According to the franchise promotional brochures, the “franchise policy” of the Molly Tea brand provides that the cooperation service fee for a single Molly Tea store is RMB 50,000, with a contract term of one year, and renewal free of charge if requirements are met. The brand management fee is 2% of actual sales revenue.

The “Brand History” section states:

• In February 2021, the first store opened in Shenzhen;
• In March 2022, the Gardenia series was launched and ranked TOP 2 in sales rankings;
• In August 2022, the Magnolia series was launched, achieving daily sales exceeding 7,000 cups;
• In September 2022, the brand officially entered Guangzhou and Dongguan, opening five stores simultaneously and ranking TOP 1 on multiple major rankings;
• In November 2022, the brand was selected by the media outlet “消费界” as one of the “Top 25 Most Valuable Catering Brands in China” for the year;
• In December 2022, annual product sales exceeded 10 million;
• In May 2023, the brand expanded into East China, with four stores opening simultaneously in Shanghai;
• In August 2023, the brand entered Northeast China and Southwest China;
• In September 2023, the brand entered North China and Northwest China;
• In October 2023, the brand entered Central China;
• In December 2023, subsidiaries were established in Guangdong, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Beijing, Sichuan, Shaanxi, and Fujian;
• In April 2024, Molly Tea expanded overseas for the first time, and its first store in New York achieved GMV exceeding RMB 3.1 million in the first month after opening;
• In June 2024, the total number of stores nationwide exceeded 500, making it the new-style Chinese tea beverage brand that reached 500 stores the fastest.

The “Profitability Analysis” section states that the estimated annual revenue of a single store is RMB 3 million (monthly revenue of RMB 250,000, with dine-in and delivery accounting for 60% and 40%, respectively). The product gross profit margin is 65%. Monthly operating expenses are estimated at RMB 25,000 for rent, RMB 32,000 for labour costs, and RMB 5,000 for utilities.

Based on the above revenue estimates, after deducting rent, labour costs, utilities, and management fees, the estimated monthly profit of a single store is RMB 50,000, with annual profit reaching RMB 600,000.

According to the number of Molly Tea stores nationwide provided by the Narrow Gate Eye (窄门餐眼) APP, the changes in the number of stores were as follows:

• September 2022: 47 stores;
• December 2022: 59 stores;
• March 2023: 66 stores;
• June 2023: 119 stores;
• September 2023: 236 stores;
• December 2023: 340 stores;
• March 2024: 405 stores;
• June 2024: 575 stores;
• September 2024: 764 stores;
• December 2024: 974 stores;
• March 2025: 1,109 stores;
• June 2025: 1,327 stores.

According to the “Molly Tea Partner” WeChat mini program, as of February 2026, Molly Tea had 2,268 stores nationwide and 43 overseas stores.

Louis Vuitton argued that even assuming that the number of Molly Tea stores in March and April 2026 was 2,268, according to the above data and calculation method, the cumulative total number of Molly Tea Company’s stores as of April 2026 should be estimated at 35,908 stores.

Applicable law

Louis Vuitton is a legal entity established in France. According to Article 1(1) of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Application of Laws for Foreign-related Civil Relations, the legal relationship involved in this case constitutes a foreign-related civil relationship.

Article 50 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Application of Laws for Foreign-related Civil Relations provides:

“The law of the place where protection is requested shall apply to infringement liability involving intellectual property rights. After the infringement occurs, the parties may also agree to choose the law of the forum.”

Louis Vuitton initiated this lawsuit within the territory of the People’s Republic of China on the grounds that Molly Tea and Dongxia Beverage Shop infringed its trademark rights. Since both the place where protection is requested and the forum are located in the People’s Republic of China, the laws of the People’s Republic of China shall apply as the governing law for resolving the trademark infringement dispute in this case.

Based on the parties’ pleadings and defenses, the evidence in the case, and the facts ascertained by the court, the issues in dispute are as follows:

(1) Whether the accused signs infringe Louis Vuitton’s exclusive rights to use the registered trademarks at issue;;

(2) Whether Dongxia Beverage Shop’s defense based on lawful source is established; and

(3) If infringement is established, how the legal liabilities of each defendant should be determined.

(1) Whether the accused signs infringe Louis Vuitton’s exclusive rights to use the registered trademarks at issue

Article 48 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Law”) provides:

“The use of a trademark refers to the use of a trademark on goods, packaging or containers of goods, and transaction documents relating to goods, or the use of a trademark in advertising, exhibitions, and other commercial activities for the purpose of identifying the source of goods.”

Article 57(2) of the Trademark Law provides that the following act constitutes infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark:

“Without the authorization of the trademark registrant, using a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same goods, or using a trademark identical or similar to its registered trademark on similar goods, where such use is likely to cause confusion.”

In this case, Louis Vuitton seeks protection for Trademark No. 61812517A, Trademark No. 68717216A, Trademark No. 1106302, Trademark No. 1111910, Trademark No. 1112498, Trademark No. 52161177, and Trademark No. 68725763A. The above registered trademarks are all within their valid protection periods. Accordingly, the exclusive rights to use such registered trademarks within the scope of their designated goods shall be protected in accordance with law.

In this regard, the court held that trademark distinctiveness refers to the characteristics that enable the relevant public to distinguish the source of goods, including inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness through use.

The four-leaf clover pattern has been widely used in traditional human culture and modern creative designs and has been associated with various meanings, such as good luck. However, the trademarks at issue have undergone detailed design, including details of the lines, their curvature, and the manner of intersection, and are not merely simple geometric figures or simple combinations of other designs that have entered the public domain. Instead, they reflect the designer’s concepts and creative expression.

The four-point star design originated from Louis Vuitton’s Monogram composite trademark and constitutes one of the original design elements of that composite trademark. With the use and acquired reputation of the Monogram composite trademark, the four-point star sign itself has also acquired a certain degree of recognition.

After registration of the trademarks at issue, Louis Vuitton used them in promotional and marketing activities relating to its catering and other business operations. Through such use, the trademarks at issue also acquired a certain degree of distinctiveness, embodied consumers’ recognition and commercial reputation, and were capable of performing the function of distinguishing the source of goods or services.

The two defendants further argued that the use of the trademarks at issue did not constitute trademark use under the Trademark Law

Pursuant to Article 48 of the Trademark Law, trademark use refers to the use of a trademark on goods, packaging or containers of goods, transaction documents relating to goods, or in advertising, exhibitions, and other commercial activities, for the purpose of identifying the source of goods.

Therefore, in determining whether a sign constitutes trademark use or decorative use, the key issue is whether the use of the sign is merely for aesthetic purposes and decoration, or whether it enables the relevant public to distinguish the provider and specific source of the goods or services through such sign. Even if the use of a sign objectively has an aesthetic function, it constitutes trademark use so long as it enables consumers to directly associate the sign with a specific brand.

In this case, based on the existing evidence, Louis Vuitton used the four-point star motif in multiple locations inside and outside its cafés. As commercial premises, the interior and exterior decorations of cafés themselves constitute part of commercial activities and serve as one of the means for conveying and promoting the brand. When the relevant public sees the four-point star motif, they are more likely to associate it with the LV brand rather than regard it merely as decoration.

Second, Louis Vuitton has established multiple cafés worldwide, including “THE HALL” at Chengdu Taikoo Li and “Louis Hao” in Shanghai. In its business operations, Louis Vuitton embossed the four-point star motif on its coffee foam, desserts, and other food products, or used the four-point star pattern as the design of food products. Tableware on café tables, decorative suitcases, and other items repeatedly incorporated patterns or designs containing the four-point star motif.

Louis Vuitton fully incorporated the four-point star motif into its catering spaces, creating a systematic and unified brand visual identity throughout the entire space, thereby conveying and reinforcing brand recognition. Louis Vuitton’s use of the motif demonstrated, subjectively, an explicit intention to distinguish its own catering services from those of other operators through the sign, and objectively fulfilled the core trademark function of identifying the source of services.

Indeed, the graphic design of the trademarks at issue possesses aesthetic value and, during actual use, also produces decorative effects. However, such decorative effects do not affect their ability to function as registered trademarks and perform the identification function.

The trademarks at issue registered in other classes were also used on corresponding products, constituting trademark use.

The existence of numerous signs or three-dimensional designs in the market similar to the trademarks at issue cannot negate the function of the trademarks at issue in indicating the source of goods or services.

Therefore, the two defendants’ argument that the trademarks at issue did not constitute trademark use is without merit, and the court does not support such argument.

The accused signs in this case were used on store decorations and interior designs, promotional boards, profile images of accounts on various platforms, milk tea cups and packaging bags, insulated bags, as well as peripheral products including cups, handbags, earrings and jewellery, square scarves, hats, smartphone cases, paper red envelopes, scented products, scented candles, and other goods.

The goods on which the accused signs were used are identical or similar to the goods designated by the corresponding trademarks at issue.

The two defendants argued that the designated goods or services of Trademark No. 61812517A include cafés and restaurants under Class 43, while their provision of milk tea and tea beverage-related services does not constitute similar goods or services.

In this regard, the court held that, when determining whether goods or services are similar, consideration should be given to whether their functions, purposes, production sectors, sales channels, consumer groups, and other factors are identical or closely related, and whether the relevant public would easily believe that the relevant goods or services are provided by the same entity or that there exists a specific connection between their providers.

In this case, according to the Classification of Similar Goods and Services, cafés and restaurants are registered goods or services under Class 43, while milk tea and tea beverages are registered goods or services under Class 30. Although the two belong to different classes and different similar groups, their core business lies in providing beverages and related goods or services to consumers.

The two categories have a relatively close relationship in terms of consumer groups, functions, and purposes. Moreover, according to the relevant evidence submitted by Louis Vuitton, Molly Tea launched its coffee business in April 2026.

Therefore, the two defendants’ argument that the two categories do not constitute similar goods or services is without merit, and the court does not accept this argument.

The two defendants further argued that the accused signs did not constitute trademark use.

In this regard, the court held that, pursuant to Article 48 of the Trademark Law, trademark use refers to the use of a trademark on goods, packaging or containers of goods, transaction documents relating to goods, or in advertising, exhibitions, and other commercial activities for the purpose of identifying the source of goods.

Article 76 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China further provides:

“Where an identical or similar sign to another person’s registered trademark is used as a product name or product decoration on identical or similar goods, and such use misleads the public, it shall constitute an act of infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as provided in Article 57(2) of the Trademark Law.”

It can be seen that the use of a sign identical or similar to another person’s trademark as product decoration also constitutes trademark infringement where such use creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source of goods.

In this case, the accused signs were used in commercial activities prescribed under the Trademark Law, including on goods, product packaging, store decorations, advertising activities, and were prominently displayed. Such use served the function of identifying the source of goods and therefore constituted trademark use.

The fact that Molly Tea used its own registered trademark “茉莉奶白” on the accused products does not affect the accused signs’ ability to perform the function of identifying the source of goods.

Molly Tea’s argument that the accused signs did not constitute trademark use is clearly inconsistent with the legal provisions, and the court does not accept such argument.

Upon comparison, the accused signs and the trademarks at issue are substantially the same in terms of design style, arrangement of elements, and line contours, and constitute similar signs.

Although Louis Vuitton’s relevant goods and café services are positioned at the high-end market level, and there are certain differences between the consumer groups of the two parties, the court noted that the milk tea and tea beverage industry commonly engages in collaboration marketing and promotional activities with high-end products or well-known brands.

Therefore, although ordinary consumers may not mistakenly believe that the accused products originate from Louis Vuitton when purchasing such products, they may nevertheless mistakenly believe that there exists a collaboration relationship or other specific association between the two parties.

With respect to the use of three-dimensional designs on peripheral products such as earrings and jewellery, scented candles, and perfume packaging, ordinary consumers may, when viewing such products individually, easily regard them as product shapes or decorative designs. However, since these products were used as peripheral products of milk tea beverages and were closely connected with Molly Tea’s core business of milk tea and tea beverages, such use would further strengthen ordinary consumers’ mistaken belief that the parties had a collaboration relationship or other specific connection, thereby infringing Louis Vuitton’s exclusive trademark rights in the trademarks at issue.

In fact, based on the relevant confusion evidence submitted by Louis Vuitton, some consumers expressed in online comments that they believed the two parties had a collaboration relationship or other specific association.

The two defendants argued that no confusion had been caused and submitted two social survey reports in support of their position. The court held that the two social survey reports were conducted through random street interception, resulting in uncertainty regarding the surveyed subjects. Moreover, the survey method violated the principle of isolated comparison in trademark similarity assessment.

Accordingly, the court did not accept the two social survey reports.

(2) Whether Dongxia Beverage Shop’s defense based on lawful source is established;

Article 64(1) of the Trademark Law provides:

“Where a seller sells goods without knowing that such goods infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, and can prove that the goods were legally obtained and identify the supplier, it shall not be liable for compensation.”

In this case, Dongxia Beverage Shop, as a franchisee, provided services such as milk tea and tea beverages to the public. The franchise store used the accused signs in various places, including store decorations and milk tea cups, and therefore directly engaged in the infringing acts as a service provider.

Accordingly, Dongxia Beverage Shop does not satisfy the conditions for applying the defense of lawful source and cannot be exempted from liability for compensation.

(3) Determination of legal liabilities

Molly Tea and Dongxia Beverage Shop constituted trademark infringement and shall bear civil liabilities including cessation of infringement and compensation for losses.

Regarding the amount of compensation

Louis Vuitton claimed that the economic losses should be calculated based on the profits derived by the defendants from the infringement and submitted various calculation methods, including calculations based on monthly profits per store, franchise and brand fees, member profits, and individual product profits.

Except for the calculation method based on franchise and brand fees, the other calculation methods were all based on the operating profits of terminal franchisees. However, franchisees and Molly Tea, as the licensor of the relevant business resources, operated and accounted for their businesses independently. The operating profits of franchisees were generated from their own business activities and could not be recognized as the infringing profits obtained by Molly Tea.

For example, the RMB 50,000 monthly profit per store stated in the franchise promotional brochures was merely a promotional estimate of expected returns of franchise stores and could not be directly equated with Molly Tea’s profits from infringement.

Therefore, Molly Tea’s calculation of its infringing profits based on monthly profits per store, member profits, and individual product profits was clearly inappropriate and could not be accepted by the court.

With respect to franchise cooperation fees and brand management fees, as the licensor of brand-related resources, Molly Tea primarily obtained profits through the collection of franchise cooperation fees and brand management fees.

First, regarding the stores operated by Molly Tea, Molly Tea had established 119 stores nationwide before changing the relevant signs. As of February 2026, Molly Tea had 2,268 stores nationwide, including both directly operated stores and franchised stores.

Since the operating conditions of directly operated stores could not be determined based on the existing evidence, the court calculated the amount by reference to the fees charged for franchised stores.

Second, regarding franchise cooperation fees, according to the franchise promotional brochures, each store was charged a franchise cooperation fee of RMB 50,000. The payment of the franchise cooperation fee included fees for business-related assets such as the “茉莉奶白” trademark, trade name, service marks, and business technologies.

Finally, regarding the trademark contribution rate:

First, in actual business operations, the stores involved in the case used the words “茉莉奶白” and the original graphic sign on their store fronts. The accused products, including milk tea cups and packaging paper bags, also simultaneously used “茉莉奶白 Molly Tea”. In addition, some products involved in the case did not use the accused signs.

Second, the “茉莉奶白” trademark had acquired a certain degree of recognition. However, the reputation of the trademarks at issue in relation to services such as cafés and restaurants was lower than the reputation of Louis Vuitton’s Monogram figurative trademark in relation to goods such as handbags and luggage.

Third, after the dispute arose, Molly Tea launched its coffee business in April 2026 based on its existing tea beverage business, demonstrating apparent bad faith.

Fourth, Molly Tea also separately charged brand management fees.

Based on the above factors, the court determined that the contribution rate of the trademarks at issue was not less than 10%.

In conclusion, the court applied discretionary damages and determined that Molly Tea shall compensate Louis Vuitton for economic losses in the amount of RMB 10,000,000. Dongxia Beverage Shop, as a franchisee, shall bear joint and several liability within the amount of RMB 100,000.

Regarding reasonable expenses for rights protection

Louis Vuitton conducted multiple rounds of evidence preservation for the purpose of protecting its rights and engaged lawyers to initiate the litigation. The lawyers devoted substantial effort and resources to the case.

Taking into account factors including the degree to which the claims were supported, the complexity of the case, the work performed by the lawyers, and the costs incurred for evidence preservation, the court exercised discretion and determined that the reasonable expenses for rights protection amounted to RMB 300,000.

Regarding the destruction of infringing inventory products

Louis Vuitton failed to provide specific information regarding the quantity and location of the infringing inventory products in stock. Moreover, ordering cessation of infringement was sufficient to protect its legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the court dismissed this claim.

Regarding Louis Vuitton’s request for publication of a statement and elimination of adverse effects

The use of the accused signs by Molly Tea would cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there exists a specific connection between the two parties. Such use would dilute the distinctiveness of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks at issue. Therefore, the court granted Louis Vuitton’s request for publication of a statement and elimination of adverse effects.

Regarding the scope of publication of the statement, the court determined such scope based on factors including the extent and nature of the infringement.

In conclusion, pursuant to Article 179 and Article 1168 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, Article 9, Article 48, Article 57(2), Article 63, and Article 64(2) of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 76 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, Articles 9, 16, and 17 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Involving Trademarks (2020 Amendment), Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 50 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations, and Article 1(1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations (I), the court rendered the following judgment:

1. The defendants, Molly Tea and Dongxia Beverage Shop in Wuzhong Economic Development Zone, shall immediately cease the infringement of the plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier’s exclusive rights to use the registered trademarks, including Trademark No. 61812517A, Trademark No. 68717216A, Trademark No. 1106302, Trademark No. 1111910, Trademark No. 1112498, Trademark No. 52161177, and Trademark No. 68725763A.

2. Within ten days from the date this judgment becomes legally effective, the defendant Molly Tea shall compensate the plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier for economic losses in the amount of RMB 10,000,000 and reasonable expenses incurred for rights enforcement in the amount of RMB 300,000. The defendant Dongxia Beverage Shop in Wuzhong Economic Development Zone shall bear joint and several liability for compensation up to RMB 100,000.

3. Molly Tea shall publish a statement and eliminate the adverse effects on the homepage of its official website (https://www.mollytea.com), official Weibo account “茉莉奶白 MollyTea”, WeChat official account “茉莉奶白”, WeChat mini program “茉莉奶白”, official Xiaohongshu account “茉莉奶白”, and Douyin account “茉莉奶白”.

4. Other claims of the plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier shall be dismissed.