Breaking
TRDiyarbakır ve Çanakkale'de İki Ayrı Deprem Meydana GeldiTRİran-ABD Gerginliği: Tahran'da Silahlı Gösteriler ve Artan TehditlerTRGülistan Doku soruşturmasında Handan Sonel ve Mehmet Aca tutuklandıTRArap Koalisyonu: Husilerin Kızıldeniz'deki ticari gemi saldırıları yeni bir terör suçuTRSağlık Bakanı Memişoğlu: Trabzon Şehir Hastanesi kasım sonunda ilk hastasını alacakTRBatı Zavtar'a ailelerin kısa süreli dönüşüne izin verildiTRÖzel Sektör Öğretmenleri Sendikası, ertelenen toplantının yeniden planlandığını duyurduTRAK Parti ve DEM Parti'den "Terörsüz Türkiye" süreci görüşmesiTRCumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan ve Mirziyoyev telefonda görüştü: İkili ilişkiler ve bölgesel konular ele alındıTRAB'nin Kıbrıs Meselesindeki Rol Arayışı ve Türk Tarafının İtirazlarıTRDiyarbakır ve Çanakkale'de İki Ayrı Deprem Meydana GeldiTRİran-ABD Gerginliği: Tahran'da Silahlı Gösteriler ve Artan TehditlerTRGülistan Doku soruşturmasında Handan Sonel ve Mehmet Aca tutuklandıTRArap Koalisyonu: Husilerin Kızıldeniz'deki ticari gemi saldırıları yeni bir terör suçuTRSağlık Bakanı Memişoğlu: Trabzon Şehir Hastanesi kasım sonunda ilk hastasını alacakTRBatı Zavtar'a ailelerin kısa süreli dönüşüne izin verildiTRÖzel Sektör Öğretmenleri Sendikası, ertelenen toplantının yeniden planlandığını duyurduTRAK Parti ve DEM Parti'den "Terörsüz Türkiye" süreci görüşmesiTRCumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan ve Mirziyoyev telefonda görüştü: İkili ilişkiler ve bölgesel konular ele alındıTRAB'nin Kıbrıs Meselesindeki Rol Arayışı ve Türk Tarafının İtirazları
Newsgather
BackChinese Tea Chain Molly Tea Fined for Louis Vuitton Trademark Infringement, Igniting Cultural Heritage Debate
Chinese Tea Chain Molly Tea Fined for Louis Vuitton Trademark Infringement, Igniting Cultural Heritage Debate
NEWS
SCMP EconomyyesterdayLaw1 min readChina

Chinese Tea Chain Molly Tea Fined for Louis Vuitton Trademark Infringement, Igniting Cultural Heritage Debate

Quick Look

  • A Suzhou court ordered Chinese tea chain Molly Tea to pay Louis Vuitton 10.3 million yuan for trademark infringement of a four-petal floral pattern.
  • The ruling sparked online anger and a debate over luxury companies privatizing traditional Chinese cultural motifs.

AI-generated summary

Why It Matters

A Suzhou court ordered Chinese tea chain Molly Tea to pay Louis Vuitton 10.3 million yuan after ruling that its four-petal floral pattern infringed on the French luxury house’s registered trademarks. This ruling sparked online anger and a debate about the privatization of traditional Chinese cultural motifs.

Font size

In early July, a Suzhou court ordered the Chinese tea chain Molly Tea to pay Louis Vuitton 10.3 million yuan (US$1.5 million) after ruling that its four-petal floral pattern infringed on the French luxury house’s registered trademarks.

Many online users, angered by the eastern Chinese court’s ruling, shared images of similar motifs found in Tang dynasty (618–907) textiles, musical instruments, and Suzhou garden architecture, arguing that these precede Louis Vuitton’s founding in 1854 by centuries.

The dispute quickly evolved in mainland social media into a deeper and more unsettling question: can a luxury company “privatise” a visual language used by a civilisation for centuries – and how should China protect its cultural heritage?

Wang Jia, an intellectual property lawyer at Sichuan Henghexin Law Firm, told the SCMP that trademark law does not grant Louis Vuitton a monopoly over every four-petalled floral motif.

“What the law protects is the mark’s function as an indicator of commercial origin – the system of brand recognition built through long-term use,” she explained.

Some online observers have argued that traditional Chinese motifs are treated as “freely available” under a global intellectual property framework, while Chinese creators risk legal action for using elements from their own culture.

Wang contended that this interpretation goes too far. Traditional motifs shaped through collective creativity are part of humanity’s shared artistic heritage, she stated, and elements in the public domain may be reasonably utilised by anyone.

Open Questions

  • How will Molly Tea respond to the court ruling?
  • Will this case influence future IP disputes involving traditional motifs in China?

Related Topics

This article was originally published by SCMP Economy.

Related Stories

More on this topicmolly tea