When Goliath sues David: China’s trademark wars test public sympathy

SINGAPORE/BEIJING – A recent string of trademark lawsuits in China, headlined by a high-profile dispute between French luxury brand Louis Vuitton and popular beverage chain Molly Tea, has highlighted a disconnect between the law and public sentiment.

As Chinese brands grow in value and stature, lawyers say companies are becoming more proactive in registering their trademarks and protecting them against copycats. This is because under China’s first-to-file system, registering a trademark generally gives the first registrant the exclusive right to use and enforce it, regardless of who used the mark first.

Yet the more aggressively companies enforce those rights, the greater the risk of a public backlash. Observers have noted growing public sympathy for the perceived underdog in such cases amid concerns over corporate overreach and the monopolisation of cultural symbols.

The Louis Vuitton-Molly Tea dispute illustrates both strands of the debate.

On June 29, a court in Suzhou ruled that Molly Tea’s floral logo was too similar to Louis Vuitton’s signature four-petal monogram and therefore infringed the French fashion house’s trademarks.

It ordered Shenzhen-based Molly Tea, which has more than 2,000 stores worldwide, to issue a public apology and pay 10.3 million yuan (S$1.96 million) in damages and legal costs.

While Molly Tea had argued that a milk tea chain and a luxury fashion house operated in different industries, the court rejected that defence, saying collaborations between luxury and consumer brands had become common enough for shoppers to assume an official commercial relationship between Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton.

Molly Tea has said it plans to appeal against the decision.

The ruling sparked heated debate on Chinese social media, with a related hashtag drawing more than 400 million views. Many Chinese netizens sided with Molly Tea, arguing that its logo drew on traditional Chinese motifs that long pre-dated Louis Vuitton, such as the baoxiang floral pattern from the Tang Dynasty.

Some even shared photos on Weibo of four-petal motifs found in homes and decorative windows in parks and heritage sites across China. “This pattern is so common, LV is being so petty. Are they poor now?” one netizen commented.

Allison Malmsten, a strategy consultant at China-focused market research firm Daxue Consulting, told The Straits Times that China is in a new stage of guochao – or national trend – that emphasises its cultural influence abroad through soft power.

“People used to, and often still do, see China as a copycat nation. Yet, Chinese designs and art have inspired brands globally. By supporting Molly Tea, Chinese consumers are taking a stand for Chinese culture and art,” she said.

However, others have argued that while traditional cultural elements are part of the public domain, modern intellectual property law does not prevent such elements from being adapted and trademarked if they are used in a distinctive way and limited to specific commercial contexts. The legal test boils down to similarity and whether consumers are likely to be confused.

According to official records, Louis Vuitton registered its monogram as a trademark in China in 1985. This was before it opened its first mainland Chinese store in 1992.

The French brand initiated the lawsuit against Molly Tea in May 2025 after the tea chain changed its branding in 2024. Previously, Molly Tea’s brand emblem featured a jasmine flower bud alongside Chinese characters.

According to Chinese media, Molly Tea filed multiple trademark applications featuring floral designs for advertising, retail, catering and accommodation. Only one application – for a trademark containing the Chinese characters for “Molly Tea” – has been approved.

The controversy over the Molly Tea ruling comes after two other recent trademark cases in China also sparked backlash online. Both cases involved well-known domestic consumer brands going after small family-run businesses for trademark infringement.

The first case involved Hong Kong-listed fast-casual chain Meet Noodles, which sued a mom-and-pop noodle shop in Henan province with a similar sounding Chinese name for 7,000 to 8,000 yuan. The move drew fierce criticism and threats of a boycott from netizens who viewed it as bullying.

Under mounting pressure, the noodle chain, which has more than 500 locations in China and abroad, withdrew its lawsuit on June 13.

Days later, its founder, Song Qi, issued a public apology and offered to give its registered trademark for free to the smaller shop.

The second case, also in Henan province, involved Chinese mid-scale hotel brand Orange Hotel, which sued the 16-room “Orange Inn” in Pingdingshan city in June, demanding the latter change its name and pay 100,000 yuan in damages.

As with the Meet Noodle case, the Orange Hotel lawsuit created substantial public debate online about whether local homophones constitute trademark infringement.

Andrea Liang, a Beijing-based partner at Hengdu Law Firm, said public opinion about trademark disputes in China has shifted markedly in recent years.

“In the past, people generally sided with originals over copycats. More recently, though, sympathy has moved towards the defendants,” the intellectual property lawyer told ST.

She said a major driver of this change is a growing sense of public concern that common vocabulary and regional cultural symbols are being claimed and controlled by corporations.

At the same time, under China’s trademark system, rights holders have to actively monitor and police the market as allowing similar marks to proliferate will make enforcement harder later, she added.

The practical barriers to enforcement have also come down as trademark records can be searched in bulk and the litigation process is now fairly standardised, said Spring Chang, founding partner of intellectual property law firm Chang Tsi and Partners.

However, while stronger enforcement by brand owners is legitimate, the Chinese courts have drawn a line on how far such enforcement actions can go, Chang told ST.

“A registered trademark is protected, but that does not let the owner expand without limit or claim a monopoly over ordinary words,” she said.

For instance, after a Shanghai-based catering firm sparked outrage by suing local restaurants for using the term “green Sichuan peppercorn”, a Sichuan high court ruled in 2022 that using a generic ingredient’s name descriptively does not constitute infringement.

Chang added that the trend of large brands suing small businesses is not new, but what has changed is how quickly and widely such cases get covered by the media today.

She said: “The more interesting change runs the other way. Small and mid-sized Chinese companies are now suing large firms, including foreign ones, more and more often... Put together, this looks less like the strong bullying the weak and more like a general rise in how seriously people take and use intellectual property rights.”

Both trademark lawyers told ST that the recent controversies are unlikely to impact legislation, though they highlight gaps in legal application and communication.

Chang said: “If public opinion swings entirely to the view that any enforcement by a big company is bullying, that will weaken the basis for legitimate enforcement and confidence in the system over time.”