When the century‑old floral monogram of a French luxury giant meets the rapid expansion of a Chinese new‑style tea brand, the boundaries of trademark protection and the standard for cross‑category confusion become the core issues in this multi‑million-dollar dispute. On July 2, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a first-instance judgment ordering Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Management Co., Ltd. to pay Louis Vuitton Malletier RMB 10.3 million in damages for trademark infringement. The court found that Molly Tea’s four-petal floral device infringed seven of Louis Vuitton’s registered trademarks in China. The judgment also requires Molly Tea to post corrective statements across its principal social media accounts and to cease the infringing activities. The company has publicly stated its intention to appeal.
I. Factual Background
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier is a French luxury goods house established in 1854 and now a subsidiary of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE. Its Monogram collection, introduced in 1896, is built around an interlocking LV initials pattern accompanied by three floral devices: a four-petal flower, a circular quatrefoil, and a concave diamond containing a floral motif. These motifs have been used continuously for more than a century and are among the most widely recognised brand identifiers in the global luxury market. In China, Louis Vuitton holds multiple registered trademarks covering its floral devices, including seven registrations relating specifically to four-petal flower configurations across relevant goods and services classes.
The defendant, Molly Tea is a Shenzhen-based beverage company founded in 2020. The brand was constructed around jasmine tea, a category its founder identified as underrepresented in a Chinese milk tea market dominated by fruit-led products. The name Molly is a phonetic reference to mòlì (茉莉), the Chinese word for jasmine. From its first location in Shenzhen, the company pursued rapid expansion, reaching more than 2,400 stores across China and internationally as of mid-2026, including locations in the United States. In August 2024, an industry consulting firm recognised Molly Tea as the first freshly made tea drink brand focused on floral scents in the Chinese market. The company has secured nearly RMB 100 million in financing.
From its founding, Molly Tea adopted a four-petal floral device as a central element of its visual identity. The device appeared on storefronts, beverage cups, packaging, digital platforms, and promotional materials, functioning as one of the brand’s primary visual identifiers alongside its name.
In parallel with this commercial rollout, Molly Tea applied to the China National Intellectual Property Administration to register the four-petal flower device as a trademark under application number 81049590. The application was rejected. During the refusal review process, the administration cited two of Louis Vuitton’s earlier flower device registrations as grounds for denial. Molly Tea did not challenge the administrative rejection before the courts, and the decision became final. Subsequent applications by Molly Tea relating to four-leaf floral designs were similarly refused or invalidated.
Despite the outcome of the registration proceedings, Molly Tea continued to use the four-petal floral device in commerce. Louis Vuitton filed trademark infringement proceedings before the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court. The case was accepted on May 15, 2025 under case number (2025) Su 05 Min Chu No. 617, with both the principal operating company and a franchise store named as defendants.
The court’s first-instance judgment found that Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Management Co., Ltd. and its franchise store, Dongxia Beverage Shop in Wuzhong Economic Development Zone, had infringed Louis Vuitton’s exclusive rights to seven registered four-petal flower device trademarks. Molly Tea has publicly stated that it disagrees with the first-instance decision and intends to appeal. The case therefore remains open as a matter of final adjudication, and the judgment does not represent a final legal determination.
II. The Court’s Reasoning and Legal Application: Infringement and the Expansion of the Confusion Doctrine
China’s Trademark Law operates on a first‑to‑file basis, and exclusive rights are confined to the registered mark and the approved goods or services. Although an administrative refusal does not itself constitute a judicial finding of infringement, the conflict expressly identified by the administration forms an important factual basis for assessing the defendant’s state of knowledge in subsequent civil proceedings. In this case, the civil infringement suit was brought against the backdrop of an unchallenged administrative refusal and the defendant’s continued commercial use of the disputed device.
(i) Trademark use.
On the question of whether Molly Tea’s use of the device constituted trademark use, the court acknowledged that four-petal floral patterns have appeared across traditional design contexts for centuries. It held, however, that Louis Vuitton’s registered flower devices are not merely simple geometric figures or combinations of elements in the public domain. Through sustained commercial use and the investment of substantial resources over many decades, the flower device had acquired a level of distinctiveness that causes consumers to associate it with Louis Vuitton as a source identifier. The court confirmed that the presence of a decorative function does not, by itself, remove a sign from the scope of trademark use. The operative question is whether consumers recognise the sign as indicating a particular commercial origin. In this case, the court found that they did.
(ii) Expanded application of likelihood of confusion.
On the question of consumer confusion, the court applied a standard that extends beyond confusion as to the origin or manufacturer of goods. The court acknowledged that consumers purchasing milk tea products would not typically believe those products had been made by a French luxury house. However, in light of widely publicised collaborations between luxury brands and consumer food and beverage companies in recent years, consumers could reasonably conclude that a licensing or co-branding arrangement existed between the parties. The court held that confusion as to such a commercial association was sufficient to establish trademark infringement under the applicable standard. This approach reflects an expansion of the confusion doctrine in Chinese trademark practice to encompass perceived brand relationships, not merely perceived product origins.
(iii) Damages and relevant factors.
The judgment ordered Molly Tea to immediately cease all infringing activities. The principal defendant was ordered to pay RMB 10 million in economic damages and RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement costs, totalling RMB 10.3 million, within ten days of the judgment becoming effective. The franchise store was held jointly and severally liable up to RMB 100,000. Court acceptance and preservation fees of approximately RMB 295,800 were also assessed against Molly Tea. In addition, the court required Molly Tea to publish corrective statements on the homepage of its official website and on its official accounts on Weibo, WeChat, its WeChat Mini Program, Xiaohongshu, and Douyin.
III. Observations and Outlook: Cultural Debate & Practical Implications
The Molly Tea case illustrates several features of China’s intellectual property regime as it applies to foreign brand owners operating in the Chinese consumer market. China’s trademark system operates on a first-to-file basis, meaning that registration is the primary source of trademark rights. For foreign rights holders with established portfolios, the system provides meaningful protection, but that protection depends on active maintenance and monitoring of third-party applications. In this case, Louis Vuitton’s pre-existing registrations covering its flower device trademarks were central to both the administrative rejection of Molly Tea’s application and the subsequent civil proceedings. The administrative record created by the rejection, in which the authority identified the potential conflict with Louis Vuitton’s earlier marks, also informed the court’s assessment of whether the continued commercial use of the device was made with knowledge of the conflict.
The decision to continue using a sign in commerce after a registration application for that sign has been refused on grounds of conflict with an earlier trademark is a matter that Chinese courts take into account when assessing both liability and the appropriate level of damages. An unsuccessful registration attempt does not function as an authorisation to proceed with commercial use. It may instead be treated as constructive notice that the sign in question falls within the scope of a third party’s protected rights. Brand owners and their counsel are generally expected to revise commercial practices following a definitive administrative rejection, particularly when no judicial challenge to that rejection is pursued.
The court’s expansion of the confusion doctrine to cover commercial association also reflects the direction of Chinese trademark jurisprudence in recent years. As licensing, co-branding, and commercial collaboration between brands across different market segments have become more common and more visible to consumers, courts have recognised that the range of misimpressions a confusingly similar mark can create has broadened correspondingly. Protection that was once understood primarily in terms of source identification now extends to cases where a mark is likely to suggest an affiliation, endorsement, or commercial relationship that does not exist.
The case offers important lessons for both foreign brands and local consumer brands in China. For foreign brands, the most cost‑effective and robust enforcement strategy lies in making full use of the first‑to‑file system: file trademark applications early in all core and related classes, continuously monitor new third‑party filings that may conflict with existing registrations, and proactively initiate opposition or invalidation proceedings at the administrative stage. For emerging local brands, the key takeaway is that after a trademark application has been refused, it is inadvisable to continue large‑scale use of the refused mark during the review or litigation process, nor should one expect that actual use will create any vested rights. The administrative refusal serves as a clear warning; brand owners should carefully assess the risk of infringement, timely adjust their commercial identifiers, or design compliant alternatives. Otherwise, in subsequent civil litigation, courts are likely to find that the brand at least had constructive knowledge of the infringement, and may award substantially higher damages.
IV. Conclusion
The case also attracted significant public attention in China, with online commentary challenging the legal outcome on cultural grounds, referencing the historical origins of four-petal floral patterns in traditional Chinese design. The legal framework applied by the court does not turn on the origins of the underlying design elements; it turns on the acquired distinctiveness of a specific commercial implementation and the likelihood of consumer confusion in the relevant market.
The defendant has appealed, and the case is now pending before the Jiangsu High Court. On appeal, the court is expected to examine the core issues of whether infringement was properly found, whether the damages award is excessive, and whether the lower court’s application of the “co‑branding” confusion doctrine was appropriate. Until the second‑instance judgment is rendered, the final legal outcome remains subject to change. Whether the appeal court will address the cultural dimensions of the public response alongside the legal merits remains to be seen. Regardless of the appellate result, the first‑instance judgment’s expansive interpretation of the confusion doctrine and its emphasis on the interplay between administrative and civil procedures will continue to influence future trademark infringement cases in China.
