A Chinese court has ordered fast-growing bubble tea chain Molly Tea to pay 10.3 million yuan ($1.5 million) in damages to luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton after ruling that the company’s logo infringed the French brand’s trademark.
The ruling has sparked a fierce debate across Chinese social media over intellectual property rights, with supporters and critics divided over whether the tea chain’s logo is an unlawful imitation or simply a common geometric design.
According to Chinese media, the court in Jiangsu Province found that the Shenzhen-based tea company had copied Louis Vuitton’s iconic four-petal flower monogram, a signature element of the luxury brand’s globally recognised logo.
In its judgment delivered by a court in Suzhou, eastern China, Molly Tea was ordered to immediately stop using the disputed logo, publish a public apology and pay 10.3 million yuan (about £1.1 million or $1.5 million) in compensation to Louis Vuitton.
Chinese state-owned newspaper China Daily also reported that Molly Tea and affiliated companies had submitted multiple trademark applications that were rejected by China’s intellectual property authorities.
According to the report, only a trademark featuring the Chinese characters for “Molly Tea” was eventually approved for registration.
Neither Molly Tea nor Louis Vuitton had publicly commented on the ruling at the time of reporting.
The decision has ignited widespread discussion online, with a hashtag related to the case attracting more than 400 million views and tens of thousands of comments on Chinese social media platforms.
Many users defended Molly Tea, arguing that the four-petal floral design is a simple geometric pattern that should not be monopolised by any single company.
Some also pointed out that several Western luxury brands have historically drawn inspiration from traditional Chinese art and cultural motifs.
One user on Weibo said they would “drink a cup of Molly Tea every day” to show support for the company, arguing that historical Chinese designs were never patented.
Another commenter on RedNote wrote that similar geometric patterns have appeared throughout history across different cultures and should not be considered exclusive to any one brand.
However, many social media users supported the court’s decision, arguing that trademark law, not artistic inspiration, was the key issue.
Several commenters noted that Louis Vuitton had legally registered the four-petal flower design and therefore had every right to protect its intellectual property.
Others argued that businesses, regardless of their industry, should not imitate distinctive trademarks simply because they operate in different markets.
The case underscores China’s increasingly robust enforcement of intellectual property rights as authorities seek to strengthen trademark protection and reassure both domestic and international brands.
For businesses, the ruling serves as a reminder that logo designs bearing close similarities to established trademarks can attract significant legal and financial consequences, even when companies operate in entirely different sectors.
