A Chinese court has ordered a popular bubble tea chain to pay $1.5m (£1.1m) in damages after ruling its logo infringed Louis Vuitton's trademark — a verdict that has ignited a fierce online debate over copyright protection in China.
Molly Tea, a Shenzhen-based chain, was found to have copied Louis Vuitton's iconic four-petal flower monogram, according to Chinese media reports. The ruling, handed down last week by a court in Suzhou, eastern Jiangsu province, ordered the tea company to stop using the logo, issue a public apology and pay 10.3m yuan in damages.
“Chinese tea chain Molly Tea must pay Louis Vuitton $1.5m for copying its four-petal flower logo.”
The decision has divided Chinese social media. A hashtag linked to the case has drawn more than 400 million views and tens of thousands of comments. Many users defended Molly Tea, pointing out that Western luxury brands often draw inspiration from Chinese artefacts. One Weibo user wrote: “I will drink a cup of Molly Tea daily” to show support. Another added: “Give me a break. They're just taking advantage of the fact that our ancestors didn't file for patents.”
On the RedNote platform, a user argued: “Such basic geometric shapes have been used everywhere throughout history, not just China.”
However, some backed the court's verdict. One Weibo user said supporters of Molly Tea should “study law first”, asserting there was no dispute because Louis Vuitton had already registered the trademark. Another commenter said the luxury brand was justified in defending its intellectual property, adding that no other brand, regardless of industry, had the right to imitate it.
According to China Daily, Molly Tea and its affiliated firms had applied for multiple trademarks that were rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Only the trademark containing the Chinese characters for “Molly Tea” was successfully registered.
The BBC has contacted Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton for comment. The case raises questions about how far copyright protections can stretch when design elements are as simple as a four-petal flower — and whether the backlash will sway public opinion or judicial outcomes in future disputes.