A conviction that concerns seven Louis Vuitton graphic trademarks
The battle between Louis Vuitton and Molly Tea is not simply about the resemblance between two flowers. It tells the story of the economic value of a motif, the extension of luxury into hospitality, the power of a figurative brand , and the difficulty of defending a global asset without triggering cultural backlash.
On June 29, 2026 , the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Province, China, issued a first-instance ruling in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier . The court found that the Chinese beverage chain had infringed on seven graphic trademarks belonging to the French fashion house. Molly Tea was ordered to pay 10 million yuan in damages, plus 300,000 yuan in reasonable legal costs, for a total of 10.3 million yuan
One clarification is necessary, however. As of July 28, 2026 , this ruling is not presented as final, and Molly Tea has publicly announced her intention to appeal. Therefore, speaking of a legal victory for Louis Vuitton is accurate, provided that the words "first instance" are added .
The dispute concerns a four-petaled floral motifused by Molly Tea as a central element of its visual identity. This symbol appeared on cups, paper bags, shop fronts, ordering interfaces, and publications on WeChat, Weibo, Douyin, and Xiaohongshu.
Louis Vuitton cited seven Chinese registrations covering several categories of products and services. The portfolio in question includes, among other things, leather goods , jewelry , scarves , phone accessories , scented candles , tableware , and catering activities .
This point is crucial. A superficial reading might compare a bag manufacturer to a milk tea chain and conclude that the two businesses are too disparate to create confusion. However, the report describes a broader reality. Molly Tea didn't just use the flower on a beverage. The brand incorporated it into a veritable brand language, encompassing everything from store decor and promotional items to accessories and collaborations.
For its part, Louis Vuitton has long since expanded beyond leather goods. The company has developed cafés, restaurants, chocolate, tableware, decorative objects, and hospitality experiences. This diversification brings the two companies' territories closer together, both legally and commercially.
To better understand this extension, the reader can consult the profile dedicated to Louis Vuitton, a luxury house born from the trunk and which has become a cultural platform.
Why does class 43 change the way the file is read?
trademark No. 61812517A was registered on December 21, 2022, for several goods and services, including bars, cafes, cafeterias, restaurants, private chef services, and catering services. It is therefore directly relevant to a chain specializing in beverages and food.
The translated judgment also highlights several concrete uses of the motif by Louis Vuitton in the culinary world. In November 2022, the brand opened The Hall restaurant in Chengdu. On July 2, 2025, it inaugurated a café in Shanghai, with a façade, tableware, cups, coasters, culinary creations, and cafés decorated using its graphic codes.
The decision is therefore not based simply on the abstract renown of the Louis Vuitton Monogram. It also relies on registered rights and commercial uses in activities similar to those of Molly Tea.
This distinction is crucial for both SEO analysis and legal rigor. Presenting the case as an attempt by a fashion brand to control any flower used by a beverage vendor would be an oversimplification. The court examined a precisely defined motif, identified trademarks, protected food services, and widespread use of the contested mark.
Figurative trademark: what does Louis Vuitton actually protect?
A figurative trademark protects an identifiable graphic sign, for example a drawing, a logo, a composition, a stylization, or a combination of visual elements. It does not automatically confer a monopoly on a general idea.
Louis Vuitton therefore cannot claim all four-petaled flowers found in art, fashion, or culture. Its protection covers specific representations, characterized by their lines, curves, intersections, proportions, and the overall impression they create.
The Suzhou court acknowledged that floral shapes and clover motifs have long been part of decorative arts. However, it ruled that the trademarks invoked by Louis Vuitton were not simply geometric figures devoid of distinctiveness. According to the reasoning presented in the judgment, their specific design, prolonged use, and public recognition conferred upon them a distinctive character.
This distinction between the theme and its execution is central:
A flower belongs to the universal vocabulary of ornamentation. A flower designed according to precise proportions can become a distinctive mark. Repeated commercial use of a very similar mark can create an association with a prior trademark. Protection also depends on the goods, services, territory, and rights actually registered.
In French law, the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) points out that a figurative trademark can consist of a drawing, a logo, or a graphic feature. The Chinese reasoning should not be mechanically transposed to French law, but the two systems share a fundamental question: does the public perceive the sign as an indication of commercial origin?
The risk of confusion does not only mean buying the wrong product
In the collective imagination, the risk of confusion often means that a consumer mistakes one product for another. This definition is too narrow.
No one expects to buy a Louis Vuitton bag when ordering jasmine tea. The legal issue may arise from another misconception: that of a collaboration, a license, a capsule collection, or a commercial partnership between the two brands.
The court specifically upheld this possibility ofcommercial association. This reasoning reflects the evolution of contemporary luxury. Collaborations between fashion houses, restaurants, hotels, artists, sports clubs, beverage brands, and figures in popular culture have become commonplace. A consumer may therefore interpret a very similar design as a sign of an official promotion, even when the products are not identical.
The case also included comments posted on Chinese social media. Some users wondered if it was a collaboration with Louis Vuitton, while others describedMolly Tea's identity as having a style inspired by LV. These reactions alone are not always sufficient to legally establish confusion. However, they reinforce the idea that the visual similarity was not purely theoretical.
A common misconception also needs correcting. The judgment did not primarily apply the special regime for well-known trademarks. The analysis focused mainly on the similarity of the goods and services, the use of the sign as a trademark, and the possibility of a commercial association. Using the term " dilution" can help explain the economic implications, but it should not be presented as the sole legal basis for this decision.
The Louis Vuitton Monogram, a brand asset created in 1896
The Louis Vuitton Monogram was created in 1896 by Georges Vuitton as a tribute to his father, Louis Vuitton. Its combination of letters, stars, and floral motifs was intended to establish an immediately recognizable signature on the house's canvas.
In January 2026, Louis Vuitton launched the celebrations for the 130th anniversary of its Monogram. The event serves as a reminder of how this design now transcends mere decoration. It encapsulates the history of the House, its trunk-making heritage, its capacity for innovation, and its global recognition.
The Luxe Daily article dedicated to the 130th anniversary of the Louis Vuitton Monogram allows us to delve deeper into this trajectory, from the historical canvas to contemporary reinterpretations.
For a luxury brand, an iconic motif fulfills several functions:
It certifies origin. It creates instant recognition. It ensures consistency across product categories. It supports perceived value and desirability. It facilitates collaborations without diluting the brand identity.
This power explains Louis Vuitton's vigilance. The more well-known a symbol is, the more attractive it becomes to imitators, opportunistic players, and brands wishing to borrow some of its prestige.
Why did Molly Tea expose herself to a high legal risk?
The risk didn't stem solely from the close chart pattern. Several factors could have weighed down Molly Tea's position.
A central and systematic use of the motif
The disputed symbol did not appear discreetly in a secondary setting. It occupied a prominent place in the chain's identity, on its cups, packaging, stores, and online accounts. This repetition reinforces the perception of an original symbol, rather than a mere embellishment.
A variation across numerous categories
The design has been used on bags, hats, scarves, candles, phone accessories, costume jewelry, and other promotional products. Several of these categories directly overlap with the trademarks cited by Louis Vuitton.
Formal notices that had no immediate effect
Louis Vuitton sent two cease-and-desist letters on August 13 and 22, 2024. According to the facts established in the judgment, Molly Tea received these letters but continued to use the trademark. For a court, continued use after notification can be a factor in assessing conduct and determining the amount of damages.
A recording attempt was refused
Molly Tea had sought to register its trademark in China for catering services. The Chinese Intellectual Property Administration rejected the application, citing, among other things, prior rights held by Louis Vuitton. The review process reportedly failed to overturn this rejection.
The company was therefore aware of the prior art conflict before the outcome of the civil proceedings. This fact makes the argument of a coincidental resemblance discovered late in the process more difficult to accept.
The decision also mandates compensation for damage to reputation
The financial penalty is not the only measure imposed. According to the initial ruling, Molly Tea must also cease the infringing practices and publish corrective statements on several channels: official website, Weibo, official WeChat account, WeChat mini-program, Xiaohongshu and Douyin.
This obligation illustrates the contemporary nature of brand enforcement. Brand infringement now unfolds within a hybrid ecosystem. It simultaneously affects physical retail, mobile interfaces, social media, loyalty programs, collaborations, and merchandise.
The remedy must therefore follow the same path as the harm caused. Removing a logo from a shop is no longer enough when thousands of images, videos, and publications have established an association in the public mind.
This logic aligns with the issues raised by Luxe Daily in its analysis of the fight against digital counterfeiting and the preservation of exclusivity.
Why did the ruling spark a cultural debate in China?
The decision has gone beyond the circle of lawyers because of a sensitive question: can a flower that is similar to motifs that have been present for centuries in Asian decorative arts be protected?
Chinese media and internet users have drawn parallels between the Louis Vuitton logo and motifs found on ancient objects, particularly designs associated with the Tang Dynasty. The debate quickly shifted from intellectual property to Chinese cultural heritage , symbolic appropriation, and the power dynamic between a global French fashion house and a popular local brand.
This reaction is based on a common confusion between two levels of protection.
The first concerns common heritage. A historical form, a traditional flower, or an ancient decorative vocabulary should not be privatized in principle.
The second concerns a specific trade mark. A company can protect a particular version of a design when its design, proportions and use allow the public to identify it with a trade origin.
The court appears to have accepted this second interpretation. It did not grant Louis Vuitton ownership of all the four-petaled flowers. It considered that the disputed signs were sufficiently similar to established trademarks and that they were used in a way likely to indicate a specific origin or commercial association.
The controversy remains strategic for Louis Vuitton. In the Chinese luxury market, legal legitimacy does not guarantee cultural acceptance. The Chinese market increasingly values its own aesthetics, local brands, and heritage references. A Western fashion house must therefore defend its rights without appearing to claim a monopoly over a culture that predates it.
Luxe Daily's analysis of luxury in China in 2026 shows that Chinese consumers have become more selective and more sensitive to offerings perceived as opportunistic or culturally superficial.
Winning in court without losing the battle of narrative
Luxury thrives on a delicate balance between scarcity, authority, and desire. Legal action can reinforce the scarcity of a symbol while simultaneously undermining public goodwill towards the brand if the public deems it disproportionate.
In this case, Louis Vuitton faces four reputational risks.
The global corporation versus the local brand narrative
The difference in economic power spontaneously creates an emotional asymmetry. Molly Tea can be perceived as the local actor attacked by a Western group with considerable legal resources.
Viral simplification
On social media, a short phrase circulates more easily than legal reasoning. The story "Louis Vuitton bans a Chinese flower" is inaccurate, but it has a greater emotional impact than an explanation involving seven trademarks, several classes, and repeated commercial uses.
The community support effect
A high-profile condemnation can transform the targeted company into a symbol of cultural resistance. The public may buy more to show their support, even without approving of the initial logo choice.
The Streisand effect
By trying to remove a symbol, a company can actually contribute to making it famous. The legal dispute has given Molly Tea international exposure that a traditional advertising campaign would have been hard-pressed to achieve at the same cost.
The answer is not to renounce the right. It is to accompany it with a clear message: Louis Vuitton protects a design and identified records, not the flower as a universal symbol.
This interplay between legal evidence and brand narrative echoes Luxe Daily's reflections on heritage storytelling in the luxury sector. Heritage is no longer merely editorial material. It becomes a commercial statement that must be documented, contextualized, and understood by the public.
What this case teaches luxury brands operating in Asia
The Louis Vuitton vs. Molly Tea case is a textbook example for legal, marketing, and communications departments.
Protecting trademarks in the categories actually used
A company that opens cafes, restaurants, hotels, or chocolate shops must adapt its trademark registrations to this diversification. Historical protection in leather goods is no longer sufficient when the brand experience extends to gastronomy and hospitality.
Monitor deposits before widespread use
Monitoring trademark applications allows for the identification of conflicts before a network of hundreds of stores rolls out a new logo. A swift administrative opposition is generally less expensive than legal action initiated after national dissemination.
Keep records of usage and reputation
Photographs of shops, menus, campaigns, footfall figures, partnerships, press articles and social content demonstrate that a pattern is perceived as an indicator of origin.
Involving cultural experts in legal decisions
A case can be legally sound but culturally risky. Local teams must assess the symbols used, the historical references, online perceptions, and the potential for a nationalist counter-narrative.
Adapt the tone of the action
A formal notice can demand the removal of a specific motif while acknowledging the legitimacy of a broader floral or cultural context. This distinction reduces the risk that defending a specific right will be interpreted as appropriating common heritage.
What arguments could Molly Tea develop on appeal?
The intention to appeal has been announced, but no final appeal decision has been identified as of July 28, 2026. Without prejudging the company's procedural strategy, several themes emerge from the public debate and legal analyses.
Challenging the similarity of products and services
Molly Tea can argue that consumers clearly distinguish between a beverage chain and a luxury brand. Louis Vuitton will respond that its rights cover the restaurant industry and that its collaborations make the idea of a commercial relationship plausible.
Emphasize the common nature of the floral motif
The company may seek to demonstrate that the four-petaled flower belongs to the public domain and possesses limited intrinsic distinctiveness. The response will consist of a precise comparison of the lines, proportions, and overall impression of the symbols.
Discuss the evidence of confusion
Online comments can be interpreted in several ways. Some indicate a belief in a collaboration. Others simply reveal that consumers have identified an inspiration or a resemblance, without actually being mistaken about the origin.
Dispute the amount of the compensation
The amount of 10.3 million yuan can be discussed in view of the turnover attributable to the sign, the duration of use, the profit made, the knowledge of prior rights and the proportionality of the penalty.
The appeal will therefore be important. It will determine whether the higher court upholds the broad interpretation of the commercial association between luxury goods and restaurants, or whether it narrows the analysis of the risk of confusion.
Can one truly own a flower?
No, a brand does not own a flower in the absolute sense. It can own exclusive rights to a specific representation, for certain products or services, in a given territory and for a defined period of time.
The formula is simple: the common heritage remains free, but a distinctive execution can be protected.
The debate becomes difficult when the line between the two seems thin. A very simple motif can gain widespread recognition through global use, but this notoriety should not erase the existence of similar historical forms. Conversely, invoking cultural heritage should not allow a company to reproduce almost identically a famous symbol and profit from its evocative power.
It is precisely this fine line that the Louis Vuitton vs. Molly Tea case highlights.
FAQ about the Louis Vuitton vs. Molly Tea case
How much does Molly Tea owe Louis Vuitton?
The first instance judgment awards 10 million yuan in damages and 300,000 yuan in reasonable defense costs, totaling 10.3 million yuan
Is the judgment of June 29, 2026 final?
No. Molly Tea has announced her intention to appeal. As of July 28, 2026, it is therefore appropriate to speak of a victory for Louis Vuitton in the first instance.
Why can a tea brand infringe on the rights of a fashion house?
Because Louis Vuitton owns trademarks covering, among other things, cafes, restaurants, tableware, packaging, and various accessories. The court also considered that the public could believe in a collaboration between the two companies.
Does Louis Vuitton own the rights to all four-petaled flowers?
No. Rights apply to specific designs registered as trademarks. A generic flower or a historical motif does not automatically become the property of Louis Vuitton.
Why is this case important for the luxury sector?
It shows that intellectual property in the luxury sector no longer concerns only bags and clothing. It extends to cafes, experiences, digital technologies, collaborations, and all the objects that build a brand universe.
A legal victory, a cultural test
TheLouis Vuitton v. Molly Tea encapsulates a major tension within contemporary luxury. Brands must consistently defend their symbols, as their value largely rests on recognition, consistency, and symbolic rarity. But this protection can no longer be conducted as a purely technical operation.
In China, every trademark protection action can become a debate about history, heritage, and cultural sovereignty. Louis Vuitton may therefore be justified in protecting a specific graphic design while still having to explain that it is not seeking to privatize a universal flower.
The lesson extends beyond this trial. In a globalized market, the law defines what a brand can prohibit. Culture determines how that prohibition will be understood. To maintain its desirability over the long term, a luxury brand must master both.
Official French sources
As of July 28, 2026, the first instance judgment was not identified in a freely accessible official court record. Factual elements were corroborated from reference (2025) Su 05 Min Chu No. 617, a detailed English translation of the judgment published on July 26, 2026, a Xinhua News Agency article published on July 9, 2026 , and the Associated Press coverage of July 7, 2026.
- LVMH, “Louis Vuitton celebrates 130 years of its Monogram, a universal icon of creation”, January 19, 2026
- National Institute of Industrial Property, "The different types of trademarks"
- French Law on Intellectual Property, Article L713-3 on the protection of well-known trademarks
