Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at Beijing MINGDUN Law Firm

Email: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cn

Date: July 22, 2026

Introduction

The luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton (“LV” or “plaintiff”) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in China against the milk tea chain store operator Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Company (“Molly Tea” or “defendant”), suing against the latter’s use, mostly on store signages, teacup packaging, online mini programs, and various promotional materials, of a Four-Petal Flower Trademark (see the below Pic 1 and Pic 2).

Pic 1: The LV classical Four-Petal Flower pattern on leather goods

Pic 2: The Four-Petal Flower Logo used by Molly Tea

On June 29, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) issued a first-instance judgment in this case ordering Molly Tea to pay a total of RMB 10.3 million (roughly USD 1.52 million) as damages, to cease any future use of the disputed trademark, and to publish a statement “across the entire network” so as to “eliminate the impact of infringement”. Molly Tea has stated its intention to appeal, so the judgement is not yet effective. We will continue to watch this case as it evolves.

How can a Milk Tea Chain Store Brand infringe on a Luxury Goods Brand

As the two parties are in vastly different industries and the difference in the unit price of their respective products is even more gigantic, the public finds it hard to understand how a milk tea chain store brand can infringe on a luxury goods brand.

The short answer is: for well-known trademarks, red lines have been drawn beyond the industries in which their reputations were established; when anyone crosses the red lines without permission, these “tripwires” might take the trespasser down.

According to the cross-class "anti-dilution" protection rule for well-known trademarks in China, if a trademark is a copy, imitation or translation of a well-known trademark, even for goods that are different or not similar to the well-known trademark, if it misleads the public and may cause damage to the interests of the owner of the well-known trademark, such trademark shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited.

In fact, as per the China Trademark Law newly amended on June 26th, 2026 and set to be effective from July 1st, 2027, for famous trademarks that are "well-known to the relevant public", regardless of whether they have been registered in China or not, they can not only prevent confusion on the same or similar goods or services, but also prevent dilution, defamation or unfair appropriation of reputation on goods or services that are not the same or similar.

In this case, the Court clearly held in its reasoning that, “The disputed mark is basically identical to the cited trademark in terms of design style, element layout, and line drawing... Given that the tea drink industry in general involves joint promotions with high-end products or well-known brands... Ordinary consumers may not mistake the complained-about product for one originating from Louis Vuitton when making a purchase, but they might mistakenly believe that there was a joint promotion or some other specific connection between the two.”

Applying the cross-class "anti-dilution" protection rule, the Court was trying to protect a well-known trademark, i.e., the LV’s four-petal flower trademark registration, against the defendant’s misappropriation on goods or services that are not the same or similar.

In a nutshell, due to the differences in industries and unit prices, there might be no likelihood of confusion regarding the source of the goods or services, but when a well-known trademark is involved, another trump card comes into play-the "anti-dilution" protection rule.  A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other not similar or identical goods or services would lead to the result that the trademark is alienated from the original source it signifies and its capacity to identify a single source is diminished. In the subject case, when the four-petal flower logo is massively used on the defendant’s store signages, milk tea teacup packaging, online mini programs, and various promotional materials, the connection of this logo with the plaintiff’s products would be alienated and its capacity to identify a single source would be diminished, and this logo might finally lose its singular association in the public mind with the plaintiff’s luxurious product lines, and therefore the harm to the plaintiff’s interests would be inevitable.

Claiming Well-known Trademark wasn’t the only card on the table

In addition to claiming the “well-known trademark” status of its Four-Petal Flower trademark on bags (Class 18), clothing (Class 25), precious metal products (Class 14), etc., the plaintiff in this case also cited its Four-Petal Flower trademark registered on the “restaurant and catering services” in Class 43 (see the below Pic 3), to claim that the defendant’s use also infringed upon its trademark registration on the identical or similar services, i.e., the restaurant and catering services.

Pic 3: The LV’s Four-Petal Flower trademark on “restaurant and catering services” in Class 43 under No. 61812517A

Because the plaintiff’s Four-Petal Flower trademark registration was unlikely a well-known trademark on the “restaurant and catering services” due to presumably limited use, when the claim was based on the Four-Petal Flower trademark registration on such services, the likelihood of confusion would be an element necessary to prove on the plaintiff’s part, but this didn’t seem difficult considering the similarities shared between the cited mark and the alleged infringing mark (see the above Pic 3 and Pic 2), as the only difference lies in the shape of the core of the floral designs which could easily escape notice with the consumer’s daily, ordinary attention. Sharing the similarity to this degree, the resulting confusion of the consumers would seem unavoidable.

The more realistic concern for the plaintiff might be, the further possible non-use cancellation actions filed by any third party against its trademark registrations in Class 43 if there were no actual commercial use on the Class 43 services, i.e., the “restaurant and catering services”. That said, considering a cancellation decision based on non-use for three consecutive years should not in any case be retrospective, the first instance judgment upholding the finding of infringement might still be maintained by the court at the next instance, even if these trademark registrations were later canceled due to non-use for three consecutive years.

Why a Pattern widely seen could be Someone’s Trademark

The public also finds it hard to understand why a pattern widely seen could be someone’s trademark as the Four-Petal Flower pattern is widely used as architectural ornament or artistic decoration in traditional Chinese history and culture.

In fact, in this case the issue under dispute was not about who had been the originator to the Four-Petal Flower pattern, instead, it was about when the Four-Petal Flower pattern had been legitimately registered as a trademark in China, and generated a high reputation through consistent commercial use and promotional activities, it can only be used to identify a single source in the absence of the trademark owner’s consent. While it is truthful that the Four-Petal Flower pattern had been part of a cherished history of architectural ornament and artistic decoration, here in this case, the Four-Petal Flower pattern was neither functioning as architectural ornament nor as artistic decoration, it was used to identify the defendant as a service provider for its milk tea chain store operating services.

On this point, the Court held in its reasoning that, “The Four-Petal Flower pattern is widely used in both traditional human culture and modern creativity... However, the trademark involved... is not a simple geometric shape or a simple combination of other patterns that have entered the public domain. It embodies the designer's ideas and expressions of thoughts... As the combined trademark is used and gains popularity, the Four-Petal Flower logo itself acquires a certain degree of recognizability; determining whether a certain logo constitutes trademark use or decorative use, the core lies in whether the use is merely for aesthetics, for decoration, or to enable the relevant public to distinguish the provider and specific source of the goods or services, even if the use of the logo objectively has an aesthetic effect, as long as it enables consumers to directly associate it with a specific brand, it constitutes trademark use. ”

In addition, it might have come to the Court’s attention that the defendant had been repeatedly trying to apply for its own Four-Petal Flower trademarks but had been rejected by the China Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) for several times. The CNIPA cited, among other prior trademarks, the plaintiff’s Four-Petal Flower trademarks in the refusal decisions. This encounter in the trademark examination proceedings shows that the defendant was clearly aware of the plaintiff’s prior Four-Petal Flower trademark registrations, albeit its claim of being an innocent user of a historical floral design motif.

Conclusion

When it comes to intellectual property (“IP”), like in any other field of law, boundaries are set and there are some lines that just shouldn’t be crossed. These lines are like invisible tripwires defending against any unauthorized trespasser-a lesson that we could learn from the subject case.

Whenever a new product line starts or a new store opens, all the businesses should be advised to do a checklist that pinpoints with red flags the main IP clearances that would be required when using elements that might be subject to third-party rights and also sets forth when authorization should be obtained for using other’s sign or design or even using a lookalike version.

Boundaries are set, lines are respected, then the creativity of a society can be upheld.