Beyond the Courtroom: A Public Humanities Critique of the Louis Vuitton v. Molly Tea Trademark Dispute
How does modern law intersect with culture and communities
Anana
7/19/20265 min read
The original language of this piece is Chinese. I translated into English with the assistance of AI.
Beyond the Law: The Louis Vuitton vs. Molly Tea Dispute Through a Public Humanities Lens
Yesterday, I wrote a general overview of this topic. Today, considering my background as a public art practitioner, I want to clarify my perspective through the lens of the Public Humanities.
The entire internet has been offering advice to Molly Tea, and lawyers have suddenly become very busy. Yet from a strictly legal standpoint, even the experts seem at a loss. While a few legal bloggers have pointed out minor angles that might offer a slim chance of success, I choose not to cite them. Not being a legal professional myself, I cannot verify their reliability without extensive research, and I want to avoid spreading any unintentional misinformation.
As a practitioner in the public humanities—though my specific focus is within the arts—the ripple effects of this dispute on public perception are immense. I believe it is essential to share a few personal observations from a public humanities perspective rather than a legal one.
The core of public humanities lies in exploring how culture, history, and art are experienced, contested, and understood within the contemporary public sphere. Guided by this framework, when looking at the conflict between Louis Vuitton (LV) and Molly Tea, I consider two main elements: how history is commercialized, and how the public responds to global power dynamics.
1. Who Has the Right to Benefit from Cultural Heritage? (The Public Domain)
I will not rehash the existing arguments here. To put it simply, Molly Tea’s proponents claim that the four-petal floral motif originates from traditional Chinese patterns and has nothing to do with LV. To emphasize once more: LV's stance is rooted firmly in law, which places it outside the realm of cultural debate.
From a public humanities perspective, however, this case exemplifies the fundamental tension between modern (Western) legal frameworks and cultural heritage. The modern intellectual property (IP) system has a relatively short history; it is designed primarily to serve a commercial society and is deeply influenced by the evolution of Western legal systems. Cultural heritage, by contrast, possesses a deep historical lineage, and its value is traditionally viewed as collective cultural wealth belonging to society or humanity as a whole.
This case raises a fascinating question: When modern IP systems clash with ancient cultural traditions, where should the boundaries of legal protection be drawn? How should a modern enterprise's trademark rights harmonize with historical symbols that belong to our shared cultural heritage? To clarify, while modern law already contains clauses to address these scenarios, the root of the problem lies in the deeper friction between modern legislation and enduring cultural traditions. This is not merely a legal issue; it is a more macro-level subject that bypasses strict legality to look at cultural ownership, historical interpretation, and the balance between public interest and commercial rights.
2. "Public Historical Resources" vs. "Private Intellectual Achievements"
It must be noted that LV did not directly register an unaltered, historical Baoxiang flower pattern (or any of the other traditional motifs from various countries mentioned in their official archives) as a trademark. The core of their legal protection lies in their highly specific, modernized reconstruction of the design—which is precisely what the court recognized as an intellectual achievement. This means that trademark law does not protect history or culture itself, but rather a tangible form of expression infused with modern industrial design and commercial distinctiveness.
Does this mean the public humanities are excluded from this stage of the conversation? Or can the tools of public humanities be used to intervene in how we define the boundary between an "original cultural symbol" and a "distinctive modern design"?
If our premise is that public humanities is the only weapon capable of "defeating" LV, then it is far from excluded; rather, it offers a critical perspective that is much deeper and more essential than law. The task of the public humanities is precisely to deconstruct the hidden histories, power dynamics, and logic of cultural consumption that lie behind the acts of "designing" and "registering."
The Appropriation and Flattening of History: Whether we look at the Baoxiang flower or the four-petal lotus, their original forms carried a sense of religious sanctity and craftsmanship. Yet, when transforming these motifs into vector graphics, both LV and Molly Tea followed the visual logic of modern consumerism, optimized for factory assembly lines and digital media. Thus, this debate is not a duel between "history and modernity," but rather a clash between two modern capitalist entities fighting for a monopoly over the "fast-food deconstruction" of historical symbols. Both parties are reducing a profound cultural matrix into a mere consumer token. LV transforms it into a symbol of "Western luxury," while Molly Tea uses it as a traffic-driver for "Guochao" (China-chic).
The Disconnect Between Elite Legal Discourse and Public Historical Memory: All the legal logic applied to this case—including the originality of LV's trademark and the likelihood of consumer confusion caused by Molly Tea—belongs to a highly elitist, modern legal discourse. However, when ordinary citizens see these graphics, they activate their cultural intuition: to them, it looks like something handed down by their ancestors. From a public humanities standpoint, the reaction of Chinese netizens shows that while the technical details of modern law may be literarily and procedurally fair, they create a massive sense of alienation and injustice on the level of historical emotion and cultural intuition. The law protects the "form," but it cannot soothe the public’s anxiety over "historical ownership."
3. Everyday Politics & Cultural Subjectivity
In the eyes of public humanities, this trademark infringement dispute has evolved into a micro-political ritual through which the public perceives and responds to global cultural power dynamics. When the public cannot exercise absolute dominance over macro-level international rule-making, they choose sides within "a dispute over a milk tea trademark" to engage in a form of symbolic, low-cost micro-political participation. The essence of this resistance is that the public attempts to hedge against their cultural anxiety by converting a consumer choice into a political statement. In doing so, the legal reality of "infringement" is selectively ignored by the public, replaced instead by a binary opposition rooted in historical memory.
I must admit that when I first saw the overwhelming wave of "emotional" comments from netizens, I felt a flash of disappointment, wondering why social media is always filled with such knee-jerk sentiment. But when I stepped back into my role as a public humanities practitioner—a role whose mission is to foster public understanding and build platforms for cross-cultural awareness—I instantly understood them. None of this has anything to do with law.
Ultimately, I want to clarify that I have deliberately avoided framing this discussion around "Guochao" or nationalistic sentiment, as I do not wish to confine this event to a narrative of geopolitical confrontation. Every country and civilization possesses traditions, history, and accompanying conflicts with modern institutional systems. From a broader perspective, the real question is how capital entities—both large and small, represented here by LV and Molly Tea—can find a balance.
昨天写了一篇通用文，考虑到我是公共艺术从业者，今天即从公共人文学的角度阐明对此事的观点。
全网都在给茉莉奶白支招，律师们一下忙了起来，却发现从法律的角度，大神们各个束手无策，确实也有一些法律博主提出了有微弱胜算机会的切入点，我就不引用了，因为不是法律从业者，不做调研无法了解其可靠性，避免带来无心的误导。
作为公共人文事业从业者，虽然我的侧重领域在艺术，但这一争端对公众认知的影响波及面极大，我觉得有必要从公共人文的角度（而非法律角度），分享一些个人看法。
公共人文学的核心在于探讨文化、历史和艺术如何在当今公共领域中被人们体验、争论和理解。基于此，面对LV和茉莉奶白争端，我会考虑两点：历史是如何被商业化了的，公众如何回应全球权力格局。
第一、谁有权从历史文化遗产中获益（公域资产 Publi Domain)
不再赘述这方面的争论，简单说即茉莉奶白一方主张四瓣花源自中国传统纹样，与LV无关。再次强调一下，LV一方在这里以法律立足，不在文化领域讨论的范围内。
我们主要说从公共人文学的角度，这便是现代（西方）法律制度与文化遗产之间的矛盾。现代知识产权制度历史较短，主要服务于商业社会，并深受西方法律体系的发展影响；而文化遗产则具有悠久的历史，其价值通常被视为属于整个社会或人类共同的文化财富。这个案例提出了一个耐人寻味的问题：当现代知识产权制度遇到源远流长的文化传统时，法律保护的边界应当如何划定？现代企业的商标权又应如何与属于公共文化遗产的历史符号相协调？再重新解释一遍，现代法律已有适用条款解释，但这个问题的根源在于，启发思考现代法律与更长远的文化传统之间的矛盾，这一问题并不只是法律问题，更涉及文化所有权、历史诠释权、公共利益与商业权利之间如何取得平衡。可以说它是一个抛开法律，更宏观层面的课题。
第二、公共历史资源”与“私人智力成果”。
必须指出的是，LV并未直接将历史原生态的宝相花纹样，或其官方说明的源自其他国家的传统纹样进行商标注册。其获得法律保护的核心，在于对其进行了高度特定化的现代化重构，这正是司法实践中法院所认定的智力成果。这意味着，商标法保护的客体绝非历史文化本身，而是注入了现代工业设计、具备商业辨识度的具象化表达形式。
那么公共人文学科，是否与这一步讨论绝缘呢？还是也可以用公共人文学科的工具来干预“原始文化符号与具备独创性的现代设计”之间的界限如何划定。
好，既然我们的标题是公共人文学是唯一有可能"打败"LV的武器，那么在这个观点上公共人文不仅没有绝缘，反而能够提供一个比法律更深刻、更能直击本质的批判性视角。公共人文的任务，恰恰是去拆解这个“设计”和“注册”的动作背后，隐藏着怎样的历史、权力和文化消费逻辑。
1、对历史的挪用和扁平化剪裁（Cultural Appropriation & Flattening of History)
无论是宝相花，还是四瓣莲花，其原生态形态是带有宗教神圣感和工匠精神的,而无论是LV还是茉莉奶白，在将其转化为矢量图时，都遵循了现代消费主义的视觉逻辑，便于工厂流水线复制和媒体传播。那么这场辩论本质上不是“历史与现代”的对决，而是两个现代资本主体在争夺对历史符号进行“快餐化解构”的垄断权。 双方都在把深厚的文化母体“降维”成消费符号。LV将其变成了“西式奢华”的代名词，茉莉奶白将其变成了“中式国潮”的引流工具。
2、法律精英话语与公众历史记忆的脱节
一切关于此事的法律逻辑，包括LV商标的独创性，茉莉奶白导致与LV视觉的混淆可能性，都是高度精英化的现代法律话语。但是，任何国家的普通公众看到那些图形时，他们调动的是文化直觉，比如，这像我们老祖宗的东西。从公共人文的角度，用中国网友的反应举例子，现代法律的技术细节对案件的审理在字面和程序上是公正的，但在历史情感和文化直觉层面上，它产生了巨大的疏离感和不公感。法律保护了“形式”，却无法安抚公众对“历史所有权”的焦虑.
第三、日常政治与文化主体性Everyday politics & Cultural Subjectivity
在公共人文的视野下，这一商标侵权法律纠纷，成为了公众感知并回应全球文化权力格局的微观政治仪式。当公众无法在宏观的国际规则制定中获得绝对主导权时，大家便在“一杯奶茶的商标争议”中站队，来进行一种象征性的、低成本的微观政治参与。这种抵抗的本质在于，公众试图通过将消费行为转化为一种政治性的表态，来对冲其文化焦虑。此时，法律层面的“侵权”事实被公众选择性的忽视，取而代之的是一种基于历史记忆的二元对立。
不得不说，当我看到翻天覆地的网友“情绪化”的评论，一开始不免感到失望，为什么社交媒体总是充满“无脑”情绪。但当我回归到公共人文从业者的身份，这一身份从业者的使命之一就是促进公众间的理解，为跨文化认知搭建平台，便瞬间理解了公众。这一切均与法律无关。
最后，说明一下我并没有把“国潮”引入此次讨论，因为我不想把这一事件圈在民族情绪和中西对抗中，任何国家任何文明都存在传统和历史，都存在其与现代制度的矛盾冲突，从更广阔的格局来看，以LV和茉莉奶白为代表的大小资本，如何平衡。
