On June 29, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province issued its first‑instance judgment in the trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier (“LV”) against Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Management Co., Ltd. and a local franchise store. The court found that the defendants had infringed seven of LV’s registered four‑flower‑motif trademarks, and ordered them to cease all infringing acts immediately. Molly Tea was ordered to pay LV RMB 10 million in economic damages and RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement costs – a total of RMB 10.3 million – with the franchise store held jointly liable within the limit of RMB 100,000. Following the ruling, Molly Tea publicly announced on July 2 that it would appeal.
Case Background
The case (docket No. (2025) Su 05 Min Chu No. 617) was filed on May 15, 2025. LV alleged that Molly Tea and its franchised outlets used a four‑flower graphic design in their brand logo, store decorations, product packaging, and online promotions that closely resembled LV’s registered trademarks. The seven trademarks in question (including Nos. 61812517A, 68717216A, 1106302, 1111910, 1112498, 52161177, and 68725763A) are LV’s iconic Monogram four‑flower motifs, long used on its leather goods and accessories and enjoying a high degree of recognition in China.
According to the China Trademark Office, Molly Tea’s affiliated companies had applied multiple times since March 2024 to register similar four‑flower designs, but all applications were rejected or remained under review. In the second half of 2024, Molly Tea adopted a new black geometric four‑petal logo (the allegedly infringing mark) and shifted its brand style to a minimalist, light‑luxury aesthetic. At the time of the lawsuit, the chain had rapidly expanded to approximately 2,400 stores in China and over 50 overseas outlets.
Court Findings and Ruling
The court held that Molly Tea’s commercial use of the disputed four‑flower pattern constituted “trademark use” under the Trademark Law. Given LV’s established reputation, the appearance of similar graphics in the mass‑market tea beverage sector was likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of goods or create an erroneous association with LV. Therefore, infringement was established.
The key rulings are as follows:
1. Both defendants must immediately cease all trademark infringing activities.
2. Molly Tea Company shall pay LV RMB 10 million in economic compensation and RMB 300,000 in reasonable expenses; the franchise store bears joint liability up to RMB 100,000.
3. Molly Tea is required to publish a public statement on its official website, Weibo, WeChat official account, Xiaohongshu, Douyin, and mini‑program within 30 days of the judgment taking effect, to eliminate the adverse impact.
4. Court filing fees of RMB 293,800 and preservation fees of RMB 5,000 shall be borne by Molly Tea.
Next Steps
The first‑instance judgment is not yet final. Both parties have 30 days from service of the judgment to file an appeal. On July 2, 2026, Molly Tea’s founder publicly confirmed that the company would appeal and that its brand visual identity would be adjusted. On the same day, Molly Tea replaced its black logo with a colour version on its mini‑program, and the topic “#Molly Tea changes to colour logo#” trended on Weibo.
Observations
This case has drawn widespread attention because it marks a departure from LV’s traditional enforcement approach – which has typically targeted small‑scale counterfeiters of leather goods – to now confronting a fast‑growing tea beverage chain with over 2,400 stores. It signals that trademark protection is extending beyond conventional product categories into broader commercial scenarios.
Under trademark law, a finding of graphical mark infringement does not require identical reproduction; the key test is likelihood of confusion. Here, the court found that the disputed flower design closely resembled LV’s registered marks in petal number, arrangement, rotation angle, and overall composition. Moreover, Molly Tea continued to use the design after its own trademark applications were rejected – a factor that may have influenced the court’s assessment of subjective intent. The high damages award likely reflects a combination of LV’s renowned reputation, the nationwide scale of the infringement (nearly 2,500 outlets), and potential willfulness.
For Molly Tea, the RMB 10.3 million compensation is only the direct financial hit. A more lasting impact lies in the mandatory overhaul of its brand visual system – the logo in question was embedded across storefronts, packaging, cup sleeves, and marketing materials. Replacement and rebranding will impose significant costs on both the company and its franchisees. The industry will be watching the appellate proceedings closely, as they may further define the boundaries of luxury brand trademark rights in the fast‑moving consumer goods sector.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号