Louis Vuitton, Molly Tea, and the four-petaled flower.
In August 2024, Molly Tea, a Chinese tea beverage chain, filed an application to register its trademark, which features a four-petaled flower. Application No. 81049590 covers, among other things, services in Class 43. The Chinese Trademark Office rejected it, citing two prior figurative trademarks owned by Louis Vuitton. Molly Tea requested a reexamination, lost the case, and did not file a further appeal. However, it continued to use the flower on its signage, cups, and in its commercial communications.
On June 29, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a first-instance ruling in favor of Louis Vuitton. The decision, made public in the days that followed, found that seven registrations relating to the Monogram floral motif had been infringed and ordered the payment of 10.3 million yuan: 10 million for economic damages and 300,000 for reasonable expenses incurred in enforcing the rights. It also ordered Molly Tea to cease the infringement and publish statements on six platforms, including Weibo and Douyin. Molly Tea announced its intention to appeal.
From a legal standpoint, the dispute highlights the strength of a well-known trademark even when companies operate in different sectors: luxury goods on one hand, and tea-based beverages on the other. The rejection of Molly Tea’s application adds a significant detail to the reconstruction of the case. The company had been informed of the existence of earlier trademarks deemed to conflict with the mark it intended to register; it nevertheless continued to use it. While this does not render the judicial assessment of the infringement unnecessary, it makes it difficult to portray the conflict as a surprise.
The ruling, however, opens up another debate. On Weibo, many users compare the Monogram flower to the baoxiang, a traditional Chinese ornamental motif dating back to the Tang Dynasty. Louis Vuitton’s Monogram was created in 1896 and will celebrate its 130th anniversary in 2026. The reference to ancient motifs does not, in and of itself, prove that the mark used by Molly Tea is lawful or that Louis Vuitton cannot protect its registered trademarks. It has, however, shifted the debate from the similarity between two trademarks to a broader cultural question: To what extent can a company claim exclusive rights to a form that the public also recognizes as part of its own visual heritage?
Here, the court’s ruling and consumer perception take different paths. The former concerns registered rights, the similarity of trademarks, and the conditions for their protection. The latter concerns the public’s perception of a global brand taking action against a local business over the use of a flower. A favorable court ruling does not necessarily determine how the public will interpret that same ruling.
On September 10, Bloomberg reported estimates from JL Warren Capital: Louis Vuitton’s sales in China are said to have fallen by about 30% in July and by 20–25% in August 2026. The same firm estimated declines of 20% and 10%, respectively, for Gucci. These estimates are based on boutique monitoring, not sales data reported by Louis Vuitton. Furthermore, the Chinese luxury market was already slowing down. The comparison between brands and the timing of the controversy therefore do not allow us to attribute those declines solely to the lawsuit against Molly Tea. They do, however, show why consumer reaction has become a factor in the economic assessment of the situation.
For those advising a business, the lesson is a practical one. Before taking action to protect a trademark, it is necessary to assess the strength of the right and choose the most effective remedy. It is also important to consider how the initiative will be perceived by customers, the media, and the relevant communities—especially when the disputed mark draws on shared cultural elements.
Louis Vuitton has won the case at the trial court level; the appeal announced by Molly Tea leaves the final outcome open. Meanwhile, this dispute serves as a reminder that a brand’s value depends on two distinct relationships: one with the law, which protects its exclusivity, and one with the public, which continues to choose it. An effective protection strategy must take both into account.