LV v. Molly Tea Debate: Is another Chinese business being bullied? Or the Chinese netizens' nationalist sentiment is being used?
This post analyzes the perspectives and attitudes surrounding the recent legal battle between Louis Vuitton and the Chinese beverage brand Molly Tea. A Chinese court recently ordered Molly Tea to pay roughly $1.5 million in compensation for trademark infringement, sparking a massive public debate.
Anana
7/19/20263 min read
中国企业又被欺负了？还是茉莉奶白利用了网友保护中华文化的热情 LV v. Molly Tea Ruling: I Side with Louis Vuitton(Chinese Court)
本文原文为英文，是作者研究生期间的写作练习，中文为AI翻译无校对。
Louis Vuitton recently won a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Chinese beverage brand Molly Tea in Suzhou, China. Shortly after the ruling, what began as a trademark dispute quickly escalated into a broader public debate colored by nationalist sentiment.
According to the Suzhou court, the four-petal motif used by Molly Tea is highly similar to Louis Vuitton's registered trademark and is likely to cause consumers to believe that Molly Tea is associated with, endorsed by, or collaborating with Louis Vuitton.Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of Louis Vuitton and ordered Molly Tea to pay RMB 10.3 million in damages.
Some Chinese netizens disagreed with the ruling, arguing that the four-petal motif in Louis Vuitton's monogram resembles traditional Chinese decorative patterns that can be traced back to the Tang Dynasty, including designs found on rosewood pipa musical instruments. From this perspective, they questioned whether Louis Vuitton should be able to claim exclusive rights over a symbol that has historical and cultural origins.
In my view, this argument misses the central legal issue. The case is about neither the ownership of a traditional cultural symbol nor the right to use such a symbol. It is about trademark protection.
Traditional decorative motifs may generally be used by anyone, provided their commercial use does not create consumer confusion or infringe upon another party's trademark rights. In the Louis Vuitton v. Molly Tea case, the concern is that consumers may reasonably believe that Louis Vuitton endorses the beverage brand or that the two companies have entered into a cross-brand collaboration. This possibility is particularly relevant because Louis Vuitton's target consumers are already familiar with its iconic monogram and are therefore more likely to associate similar designs with the luxury brand.
Some commentators have argued that Louis Vuitton has extended its trademark protection too far because it operates in the luxury fashion industry while Molly Tea sells beverages. According to this view, consumers are unlikely to associate a tea brand with a luxury fashion house.
I disagree. In today's marketplace, collaborations between luxury brands and food or beverage companies have become increasingly common. A notable example is the collaboration between Fendi and HEYTEA, which generated widespread public attention in China. Similarly, Ralph Lauren has expanded into cafés, further blurring the traditional boundaries between luxury fashion and lifestyle businesses. Given these market trends, it is entirely plausible that consumers encountering a tea brand with a logo highly similar to Louis Vuitton's could assume that the product is part of an authorized collaboration, licensing agreement, or endorsement by the luxury brand. Trademark law is designed to prevent precisely this type of mistaken commercial association. The legal issue is not whether consumers would believe that Louis Vuitton manufactures tea, but whether they would reasonably believe that Louis Vuitton has authorized or partnered with the beverage company.
Moreover, four-petal floral motifs are not unique to Chinese culture. Similar decorative designs have appeared throughout the histories of many different civilizations.
If some Chinese netizens wish to express their patriotic views and challenge Louis Vuitton, a more effective legal strategy would be to contest the validity or scope of Louis Vuitton's trademark rather than argue that Molly Tea should be exempt from trademark infringement. A more neutral and non-ethnic discussion would instead ask whether Louis Vuitton should be allowed to maintain exclusive trademark rights over a motif that resembles a traditional decorative pattern.
In conclusion, I support the Suzhou court's ruling because Louis Vuitton's trademark remains legally valid and enforceable. Regardless of the historical origins of similar decorative motifs, trademark law exists to prevent consumer confusion and protect established brand identities. Unless Louis Vuitton's trademark is successfully challenged through legal procedures, its registered rights should continue to receive legal protection.
路易威登最近在中国苏州起诉中国饮料品牌"茉莉茶"商标侵权胜诉。判决后不久，这场商标纠纷迅速升级为一场带有民族主义色彩的更广泛公众辩论。根据苏州法院的认定，茉莉茶使用的四瓣图案与路易威登的注册商标高度相似，很可能导致消费者认为茉莉茶与路易威登有关联、获得其认可或与之合作。因此，法院判决路易威登胜诉，责令茉莉茶支付1030万元人民币的赔偿金。
一些中国网友不同意这一判决，认为路易威登字母组合中的四瓣图案类似中国传统装饰图案，可追溯至唐代，包括在红木琵琶乐器上发现的设计。从这个角度，他们质疑路易威登是否应该能够对一个具有历史和文化起源的符号主张独占权。在我看来，这一论点偏离了核心法律问题。本案既不是关于传统文化符号的所有权，也不是关于使用此类符号的权利。它是关于商标保护。传统装饰图案通常可以被任何人使用，前提是其商业使用不会造成消费者混淆或侵犯另一方的商标权。在路易威登诉茉莉茶案中，令人担忧的是消费者可能合理地认为路易威登认可该饮料品牌，或者两家公司已达成跨品牌合作。这种可能性尤其相关，因为路易威登的目标消费者已经熟悉其标志性的字母组合，因此更有可能将类似设计与该奢侈品牌联系起来。
一些评论人士认为，路易威登将其商标保护延伸得太远，因为它从事奢侈时尚行业，而茉莉茶销售饮料。根据这种观点，消费者不太可能将茶品牌与奢侈时装公司联系起来。我不同意。在当今市场中，奢侈品牌与食品或饮料公司之间的合作变得越来越普遍。
一个显著的例子是芬迪与喜茶的合作，这在中国引起了广泛关注。同样，拉尔夫·劳伦已扩展到咖啡馆领域，进一步模糊了奢侈时尚和生活方式业务之间的传统界限。鉴于这些市场趋势，消费者遇到一个标志与路易威登高度相似的茶品牌时，完全可能假设该产品是奢侈品牌授权的合作、许可协议或认可的一部分。
商标法正是旨在防止这种类型的错误商业关联。法律问题不是消费者是否会相信路易威登生产茶，而是他们是否会合理地认为路易威登已授权或与该饮料公司合作。
此外，四瓣花卉图案并非中国文化独有。类似的装饰设计出现在许多不同文明的历史中。
如果一些中国网友希望表达他们的爱国观点并挑战路易威登，更有效的法律策略是质疑路易威登商标的有效性，而不是主张茉莉茶应免于商标侵权。一个更中性和非种族的讨论会转而询问路易威登是否应该被允许对一个类似传统装饰图案的图案维持独占商标权。
总之，我支持苏州法院的判决，因为路易威登的商标仍然合法有效且可执行。无论类似装饰图案的历史起源如何，商标法的存在是为了防止消费者混淆并保护既定的品牌身份。除非路易威登的商标通过法律程序被成功挑战，否则其注册权利应继续受到法律保护。
