Louis Vuitton’s Trademark Case in China Sparks Cultural Backlash

A recent legal ruling has put French luxury brand Louis Vuitton in the spotlight. A Chinese court’s decision on June 29 in the eastern province of Jiangsu has stirred controversy among Chinese internet users. The Intermediate People’s Court ruled that Molly Tea, a local tea chain, infringed seven of Louis Vuitton’s registered trademarks, including its renowned Monogram Canvas featuring stylized floral designs.

The court identified similarities between the four-leaf floral pattern of Molly Tea’s logo and Louis Vuitton’s monogram motifs. Consequently, Molly Tea is required to pay 10 million renminbi (around $1.4 million) in damages plus 300,000 RMB in legal costs within ten days, according to the Guangzhou-based Nanfang Metropolis Daily. The ruling has not yet taken effect, leaving open the possibility of an appeal by Molly Tea.

Molly Tea, located in Shenzhen, has gained popularity with young consumers by merging traditional Chinese tea flavors with modern, minimalist branding, which is well-suited for social media sharing. This case elicited significant reactions on social media. As of Tuesday, the hashtag “LV cannot sue for trademark infringement over its use of Chinese patterns” exceeded 33 million views on Weibo.

“Under no circumstances should international brands like LV be allowed to claim Chinese culture and then accuse others,” commented one Weibo user.

“While waving the banner of intellectual property protection, they act with impunity, profiting from Chinese companies,” wrote another user.

Critics are questioning the court’s examination of the designs’ cultural origins. “Do the judges have no sense of national sovereignty?” posted one commenter on Weibo.

The criticism largely centers not on the legality of Louis Vuitton’s trademark ownership but rather on how trademark laws handle traditional cultural imagery. Historically used motifs are often deemed too common for trademark protection. Yet, companies investing considerable time in marketing certain patterns can legitimately claim exclusive rights if the designs become associated with their brand.

This case parallels another involving Louis Vuitton earlier this year. A defunct restaurant in Nanjing was ordered to pay 60,000 yuan in damages and 20,000 yuan in legal fees for infringing LV trademarks with its vintage floral decor.

The controversy also revived a long-standing joke among netizens. Many mockingly refer to Louis Vuitton bags as “toilet bags.” The brand’s distinctive floral pattern bears resemblance to traditional Chinese motifs found on window grills, floor tiles, and ceramic wall tiles once common in public toilets.