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)

Mengchun’s Comments

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.

Second, before this litigation, Molly Tea had already attempted to register the disputed flower device as part of Trademark No. 81049590. During the refusal review proceedings, the CNIPA cited two of Louis Vuitton’s earlier flower device registrations and rejected the refusal review application. Molly Tea did not challenge that decision before the courts, and the refusal review decision has therefore become final.

Third, the court’s reasoning is also consistent with established Chinese trademark principles. It confirmed that decorative use does not necessarily exclude trademark use. More importantly, the court held that confusion is not limited to confusion as to the origin of goods. It is sufficient if consumers are likely to believe that some commercial relationship, such as co-branding, licensing, or other commercial cooperation, exists between the parties.

What makes this case particularly interesting is not the legal analysis, but the overwhelming public reaction following the judgment.

A significant part of the online discussion was driven by a familiar narrative: a global luxury brand suing a popular domestic milk tea chain. Once the dispute was perceived in this way, the legal issues quickly became secondary.

Similar public reactions have occurred in other IP disputes in China. A recent example is the dispute between Yujian Xiaomian (遇见小面) and Yujian Xiaomian (渝见小面), in which the trademark owner eventually withdrew the lawsuit after widespread public criticism. Whether or not the legal claims were ultimately well founded became secondary; once the dispute was framed as a large brand pursuing a small business, public opinion largely dominated the discussion.

For brand owners, this case serves as a reminder that legal merits and public perception do not always move in the same direction. Particularly where the defendant is a consumer-facing business with substantial public goodwill, enforcement strategies should take potential reputational risks into account alongside legal considerations.

Case Background

Louis Vuitton Malletier (“Louis Vuitton”) owns seven registered flower device trademarks in China covering its iconic Monogram floral elements.

Molly Tea adopted a four-petal floral device as one of its principal brand identifiers and used it extensively on storefronts, beverage packaging, online platforms, and promotional materials.

The alleged infringing acts included the following:

Louis Vuitton filed trademark infringement proceedings before the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court.

In its first-instance judgment, the court ordered Molly Tea to cease the infringing activities, pay RMB 10 million in damages together with RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses, and publish statements on its official website, Weibo, WeChat Official Account, WeChat Mini Program, Xiaohongshu and Douyin to eliminate the adverse effects of the infringement.

Molly Tea has publicly stated that it intends to appeal.

Court’s Findings

Decorative Use Does Not Exclude Trademark Use

The court acknowledged that four-petal floral patterns have long been widely used in traditional culture and modern design.

However, it held that Louis Vuitton’s registered flower device trademarks are not merely simple geometric figures or simple combinations of public-domain designs. Rather, they embody the designer’s creative expression and, through long-term use and acquired reputation, the flower device itself has acquired distinctiveness.

The court further explained that the key issue is whether the disputed sign enables consumers to distinguish the provider or source of goods or services. Even if a sign also serves a decorative purpose, it still constitutes trademark use if consumers directly associate the sign with a particular brand.

Confusion Includes Commercial Association

The court recognized that ordinary consumers purchasing milk tea products would not necessarily believe that the products originated from Louis Vuitton.

However, considering the increasingly common practice of collaborations between luxury brands and consumer brands, consumers could reasonably believe that some commercial relationship existed between the parties. The court therefore held that confusion as to such commercial association was sufficient to establish trademark infringement.

Judgment

The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court ordered that:

• Molly Tea immediately cease infringing Louis Vuitton’s seven registered trademarks;
• Molly Tea pay RMB 10 million in damages together with RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses; and
• Molly Tea publish statements on its official website, Weibo, WeChat Official Account, WeChat Mini Program, Xiaohongshu and Douyin to eliminate the adverse effects of the infringement.

Molly Tea has publicly stated that it intends to appeal.

Case Reference

Court: Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court (First Instance)

Decision Date: 2026

Case No.: （2025）苏05民初617号 / (2025) Su 05 Min Chu No. 617