A Chinese court’s ruling in favor of Louis Vuitton in a trademark case has sparked a backlash among Chinese netizens, who accuse the French luxury brand of appropriating traditional Chinese culture while using trademark law to claim exclusive rights.
Luxury Giant vs. Tea Chain
In the June 29 decision, the Intermediate People’s Court in the eastern province of Jiangsu found that the local tea chain Molly Tea had infringed seven of Louis Vuitton’s registered trademarks, including its iconic Monogram Canvas featuring stylized flowers.
The court found that the four-leaf floral pattern of the Molly Tea logo is very similar to Louis Vuitton’s registered monogram motifs, ordering the Chinese company to pay 10 million renminbi (about $1.4 million) in damages and 300,000 RMB in legal fees within 10 days, the Guangzhou-based Nanfang Metropolis Daily reported.
The ruling has not yet taken effect, and it remains unclear whether Molly Tea will appeal.
Based in Shenzhen, Molly Tea has become popular among younger consumers by combining traditional Chinese tea flavors with sleek, minimalist branding suited for sharing on social media.
As of Tuesday, the hashtag “LV cannot sue for trademark infringement over its use of Chinese patterns” had attracted more than 33 million views on social media platform Weibo.
Trademark law and Cultural Heritage
Netizens have been posting photos comparing Louis Vuitton’s signature floral monogram with decorative motifs that predate the brand by more than 1,000 years.
“Under no circumstances should international brands such as LV be allowed to steal Chinese culture and then turn around and accuse others,” one Weibo user wrote.
“While waving the banner of intellectual-property protection, they are acting with impunity and harvesting profits from Chinese companies,” another user wrote.
Some users also directed their criticism at the court itself, suggesting the judges had failed to properly consider the designs’ cultural origins.
“Do the judges have no sense of national sovereignty?” one commenter wrote.
Much of the criticism has focused less on whether Louis Vuitton legally owns the trademarks and more on how trademark law treats traditional cultural imagery.
Motifs used for centuries are often considered too common to qualify for trademark protection on their own. But companies that spend decades promoting a particular design can acquire exclusive trademark rights if consumers come to associate that version with a specific brand, legal observers say.
The Molly Tea ruling also recalls another Louis Vuitton trademark case earlier this year, in which a now-shuttered Nanjing restaurant was ordered to pay 60,000 yuan in damages and 20,000 yuan in legal fees after a court found its vintage floral decor had also infringed LV trademarks.
Read More on World
‘Toilet Bags’
The controversy also revived a long-running joke, with some netizens mockingly referring to Louis Vuitton bags as “toilet bags.”
The brand’s signature floral pattern resembles traditional Chinese decorative motifs found on window grills, floor tiles—and ceramic wall tiles once common in public pit toilets.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: John Feng and Sam Wilson.