Trademark infringement

China IP Quarterly Update — Q2 2026: Key Trends and Practical Considerations

China IP Quarterly Update — Q2 2026: Key Trends and Practical ConsiderationsBy •

Executive Takeaways 1. Revised Trademark Law Further Strengthens Trademark Protection and Regulatory Oversight Trend On June 26, 2026, the revised Trademark Law was adopted and will take effect on January 1, 2027. The amendments introduce several significant changes, including: These changes reflect China’s continued efforts to strengthen trademark protection while improving regulatory oversight over trademark registration and use. Practical Considerations […]

China IP Quarterly Update — Q2 2026: Key Trends and Practical Considerations More »

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 »

Jiangsu High Court: Brand Recognition Does Not Automatically Establish Protection for Product Decorations (Judgment of May 27, 2026)

Jiangsu High Court: Brand Recognition Does Not Automatically Establish Protection for Product Decorations (Judgment of May 27, 2026)By •

The court emphasized that brand recognition does not automatically translate into recognition of a product decoration. Even where a brand enjoys substantial market recognition, rights holders should be prepared to prove that the specific product decoration at issue has itself acquired market influence and source-identifying significance. Evidence relating solely to the fame of the brand may not be sufficient.

Jiangsu High Court: Brand Recognition Does Not Automatically Establish Protection for Product Decorations (Judgment of May 27, 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 »

Scroll to Top