MOLLY TEA LV TRADEMARK DISPUTE | WHY A FOUR PETAL FLOWER LED TO A RMB 10.3 MILLION RULING

MOLLY TEA LV TRADEMARK DISPUTE is more than a dispute over whether two flowers look similar. It is a case about how brand recognition, trademark registration, cultural references and public sentiment can collide when a fast growing consumer brand changes its visual identity.

Molly Tea opened its first store in Shenzhen in 2021 and expanded rapidly. By April 2026, the company said it had more than 2,200 stores worldwide. In the second half of 2024, the brand increasingly used a black geometric four petal flower across store signs, cups, packaging and digital touchpoints.

That visual update later became the center of a trademark lawsuit brought by Louis Vuitton. On 29 June 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a first instance ruling finding that Molly Tea had infringed seven registered four petal flower trademarks owned by Louis Vuitton. The court ordered compensation of RMB 10 million plus RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses, for a total of RMB 10.3 million, together with measures to stop the use and eliminate the impact.

However, this is important: the case was not final at the time of the first instance decision. Molly Tea said it would appeal, and LVMH later said the matter remained in judicial proceedings.

QUICK ANSWER

The court did not rule that Louis Vuitton owns every traditional four petal motif. The first instance decision concerned specific registered Louis Vuitton trademarks, their distinctiveness and reputation, and the court’s finding that Molly Tea’s commercial use created a likelihood that consumers could assume a connection, collaboration or authorization between the two brands.

The controversy became larger because experts and online commentators traced both visual systems to much older decorative traditions, including the Chinese shitidiwen motif and the baoxianghua patterns that developed from it. That created a second debate: how should modern trademark protection interact with traditional visual culture that belongs to the public domain?

For brand owners, the lesson is practical. A redesign can look attractive and still carry legal risk. Visual inspiration, trademark clearance and consumer perception all need to be considered before a new symbol is rolled out at scale.

WHAT THE MOLLY TEA LV TRADEMARK DISPUTE IS REALLY ABOUT

At first glance, the case looks like a simple question of visual similarity. In reality, the legal issue was broader.

Louis Vuitton relied on seven registered four petal flower marks connected to its Monogram system. According to reporting on the judgment, the court found Molly Tea’s four petal sign sufficiently similar in composition and overall visual impression to infringe those registered rights.

Another important factor was trademark history. Molly Tea related entities had applied to register several flower based marks from 2024, but a number of those applications were rejected or did not obtain valid registration. The disputed symbol was nevertheless used widely in commercial settings.

The court also considered the possibility of consumers assuming that the two brands had a collaboration, licensing relationship or other commercial connection. This matters because modern brand confusion is not limited to believing that two products come from the same manufacturer. In an era of constant brand collaborations, consumers can also be confused about sponsorship or authorization.

Side by side comparison of Molly Tea four petal logo and Louis Vuitton flower marks, with neutral labels.

WHY TRADITIONAL CULTURAL MOTIFS BECAME PART OF THE ARGUMENT

After the ruling became public, much of the online discussion moved away from tea and luxury goods and toward cultural history.

Experts cited by Chinese media noted that both the Louis Vuitton flower motif and the Molly Tea symbol can be understood within a much older visual lineage related to shitidiwen, a traditional Chinese decorative structure named after the shape of a persimmon calyx. During the Tang period, more complex baoxianghua patterns became widespread in textiles and decorative arts.

This history created an emotional question for many consumers: if a visual idea has roots in traditional culture, should one modern company be able to stop another company from using a similar form?

Legally, the answer is more specific than the online debate often suggests. Trademark registration does not give a company private ownership over every version of an ancient cultural motif. Protection applies to registered signs within the legal scope of trademark law. Courts can consider the distinctiveness of the registered mark, its reputation, the similarity of the later sign and the likelihood of confusion.

The first instance court’s reasoning, as summarized by legal commentary, was that the Louis Vuitton marks were not merely a direct copy of a simple public domain geometric pattern. Through commercial design, registration and long term use, the specific signs had acquired distinctiveness and recognition.

Traditional shitidiwen and Tang dynasty baoxianghua references shown next to modern brand motifs.

WHY LOUIS VUITTON ENFORCES ITS VISUAL ASSETS SO AGGRESSIVELY

This was not the first time Louis Vuitton faced public criticism for enforcing visual trademarks against a much smaller business.

In 2013, a Hong Kong hair salon received a claim after Louis Vuitton objected to brown checker patterned chairs that it considered similar to its Damier visual identity. Contemporary reporting said the company initially sought HKD 25,000 and a published apology. After public criticism, the parties reached a settlement.

From the public’s perspective, the size difference between a global luxury house and a small salon made the dispute appear disproportionate. From a trademark owner’s perspective, however, inconsistent enforcement can weaken the exclusivity and distinctiveness of an asset over time.

This tension explains why luxury brands often defend graphic elements that may seem minor to consumers. A repeating flower, checker pattern or monogram is not only decoration. It is a commercial identifier that can carry decades of accumulated brand equity.

THE PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEM IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LEGAL PROBLEM

A company can have a strong legal argument and still face a reputational challenge.

In the Molly Tea case, public reaction was influenced by three factors. First, many people saw a large luxury group pursuing a rapidly growing tea brand. Second, the disputed shape could be connected to traditional decorative culture. Third, the products operate at very different price points, which made the conflict feel uneven to some consumers.

LVMH CFO Cécile Cabanis later addressed the controversy during the group’s 2026 half year results call. She said intellectual property was a core asset and that the group regularly handles trademark infringement matters in many countries, not only China. She also noted that the Molly Tea case remained in the judicial process and declined to comment further.

That response is strategically important. It frames enforcement as a global operating practice rather than a special action against one Chinese tea brand. But it also shows why trademark litigation can quickly become a communications issue. Courts decide legal rights. Consumers decide whether enforcement feels proportionate and consistent with the brand’s image.

EUTOPIA INSIGHT | LAW AND BRAND PERCEPTION ARE TWO DIFFERENT SCOREBOARDS

The most useful lesson from this case is that legal victory and brand approval are not the same thing.

A trademark owner may need to defend a distinctive asset to preserve long term value. At the same time, the way that enforcement is communicated can affect public trust, cultural sensitivity and brand preference.

For a challenger brand, sympathy from consumers is not a substitute for legal clearance. A visual system can feel culturally meaningful and still create infringement risk if it is too close to a registered and highly recognized mark.

The real strategic question is therefore not whether brands should protect their assets. It is how they can protect them without creating avoidable reputational damage, and how new brands can build distinctive identities without entering legal territory that was visible before launch.

WHAT NEW BRANDS SHOULD LEARN BEFORE A REBRAND

First, conduct trademark clearance before a visual identity is rolled out across stores, packaging and digital channels.

Second, do not rely only on a design explanation. Saying that a symbol came from traditional culture does not automatically remove the risk created by a similar registered mark.

Third, document the design process. Mood boards, historical references, sketches and development files can help show how a symbol was created and where its distinctive elements came from.

Fourth, test consumer perception. If ordinary viewers repeatedly assume that two brands are collaborating, that is a warning sign even before a lawsuit begins.

Finally, treat legal review as part of brand design rather than something that happens after launch. Replacing a logo across thousands of stores is far more expensive than checking it properly before rollout.

WATCH THE FULL CASE STUDY

For the full visual breakdown, including the logo comparison, traditional pattern references and public reaction, watch the Eutopia YouTube case study here.

FAQ

Q: Did Louis Vuitton finally win the case against Molly Tea?

A: Louis Vuitton won the first instance ruling at the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court. Molly Tea said it would appeal. LVMH later confirmed that the case was still in judicial proceedings. A first instance ruling should therefore not be described as a final judgment while the appeal process remains active.

Q: How much was Molly Tea ordered to pay?

A: The first instance ruling ordered RMB 10 million in economic damages and RMB 300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses, for a total of RMB 10.3 million. The judgment also included orders to stop the infringing use and publish statements to eliminate the impact after the judgment takes effect.

Q: Does Louis Vuitton own the traditional baoxianghua or shitidiwen motif?

A: No. Trademark rights do not amount to private ownership of all traditional motifs. The dispute concerns specific registered Louis Vuitton marks and whether Molly Tea’s commercial sign was legally too similar to those protected marks.

Q: Why can luxury trademarks receive protection outside handbags?

A: Famous or highly recognized trademarks may receive broader protection under trademark law when use in other categories could still create confusion, association or dilution. In this case, the court considered commercial association and possible collaboration confusion.

Q: What should brands do before changing a logo?

A: They should combine creative development with trademark searching, legal review, consumer perception testing and documentation of the design process before large scale rollout.