A Cup of Milk Tea That Cost RMB10 Million – What Every Business Owner Can Learn from the Louis Vuitton vs Molly Tea Case

Imagine spending years building a successful brand.

Your cafés are packed every everyday. Customers proudly post photos of your drinks online. Franchise outlets are opening across the country. Investors are paying attention. From the outside, everything seems to be going exactly according to plan.

Then one day, you receive a court judgment, which orders your company to pay RMB 10.3million because of one flower logo you’ve been using on your cups, shopfronts and packaging.

It sounds unbelievable.

Yet that is exactly what reportedly happened to one of China’s rapidly expanding premium tea chains, Molly Tea (茉莉奶白), in its trademark dispute with Louis Vuitton.

The case has quickly become one of the most talked-about intellectual property stories in China this year. Not only because Louis Vuitton won, but because it won against a milk tea company operating in a completely different industry.

How could a luxury fashion house end up in court with a milk tea brand?

The answer is far more interesting than it first appears.

What Happened Between Louis Vuitton and Molly Tea?

Over the past few years, Molly Tea has grown rapidly across China, becoming known for its premium jasmine-based beverages and elegant branding. Like many lifestyle-focused brands, it invested heavily in creating a distinctive visual identity. One of the key elements of that identity was a stylised four-petal flower device, which appeared consistently across its business—from shop signage and takeaway cups to packaging, online platforms and promotional materials.

Louis Vuitton, however, viewed that flower differently.

According to publicly reported information, Louis Vuitton alleged that Molly Tea’s flower device was too similar to several of its registered flower-device trademarks, which form part of the luxury brand’s iconic Monogram design family.

The dispute eventually reached the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court.

The reported outcome surprised many observers.

The Court reportedly ordered Molly Tea to:

• cease using the disputed logo;

• pay RMB10 million in trademark infringement damages;

• reimburse RMB300,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses; and

• publish statements to eliminate the effects of the infringement.

Molly Tea has since announced that it intends to appeal. As such, the decision remains a first-instance judgment, and the dispute has not yet reached its final conclusion.

Interestingly, what truly captured public attention wasn’t merely the dispute alone, it was the size of the damages.

Why Did RMB10 Million Capture So Much Attention?

For many business owners, RMB10 million is more than just a legal figure. It represents years of profit, finance a nationwide marketing campaign, open dozens of new outlets, or fund the next stage of business expansion.

So when headlines reported that a milk tea company had been ordered to pay RMB10.3 million over a logo dispute, many readers immediately assumed this must be one of the largest trademark awards ever granted in China.

The reality is a little more nuanced.

Although RMB10.3 million is undoubtedly a substantial trademark infringement award, Chinese courts have, in several landmark cases, awarded even higher damages where the circumstances justified it.

Reported Trademark Damages in Selected China Cases

Case	Reported Monetery	Remarks
Beijing Daoxiangcun v Suzhou Daoxiangcun	RMB30 million	Famous dispute involving the long-running “Daoxiangcun(稻香村)” trademark.
New Balance v New Barlun	RMB25 million	Landmark decision involving infringement of New Balance’s well-known “N” logo.
Louis Vuitton v Molly Tea	RMB10.3 million	First-instance judgment. Molly Tea reportedly intends to appeal

As we can see, Louis Vuitton’s reported award is certainly not unprecedented.

However, it still sits among the more significant trademark damages reported in China in recent years.

More importantly, it sends a message.

Recent Chinese cases show that courts are prepared to make substantial monetary awards in serious IP disputes, particularly where the infringement is large-scale, deliberate or commercially significant. However, awards exceeding RMB10 million remain exceptional rather than routine.

For ordinary businesses, that should not be overlooked.

Many entrepreneurs still assume trademark disputes typically end with a cease and desist letter, a negotiated settlement or modest compensation.

This case serves as a reminder that, under the right circumstances, the financial consequences can be far greater.

Before We Go Further…

Before discussing the legal issues, one point deserves clarification.

At the time of writing, the full written judgment has not yet been publicly released.

Most of the information currently available comes from reputable media reports, commentary by Chinese intellectual property practitioners and publicly circulated extracts of the decision.

That means we still do not have the Court’s complete reasoning.

We do not yet know, for example:

• how the Court assessed the similarity between the two logos in detail;

• how it calculated the reported RMB10.3 million award;

• the precise legal provisions relied upon; or

• whether there were additional facts that significantly influenced the outcome.

Those details remain to be seen once the official judgment becomes publicly available.

Accordingly, this article analyses the dispute based on information that has been publicly reported, while avoiding speculation where the Court’s reasoning has not yet been disclosed.

Interestingly, even without the complete judgment, one aspect of the case has already generated enormous discussion.

How could a luxury fashion house successfully sue a milk tea company when they are not known to be selling milk tea?

That question lies at the heart of why this case has attracted so much attention—and why every business owner should understand what comes next.

Was This Really About Selling Milk Tea?

At first glance, the lawsuit doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Louis Vuitton is known for selling luxury handbags, wallets and fashion accessories.

Molly Tea sells jasmine milk tea.

No reasonable customer walks into a tea shop expecting they are buying a Louis Vuitton beverage. So why did the dispute end up in court at all?

That question has appeared repeatedly across Chinese social media since news of the judgment broke.

Ironically, it is also where many people misunderstand trademark law.

The issue is not always whether consumers believe two businesses sell the same product.

Sometimes, the real question is whether consumers might believe the two businesses are somehow connected.

Could Consumers Think There Was a Collaboration?

Over the past decade, collaborations between luxury brands and companies outside the fashion industry have become increasingly common.

Louis Vuitton has collaborated with artists.

Fashion brands have collaborated with coffee chains.

Luxury labels have partnered with cosmetics companies, hotels, restaurants, video games and even fast-food brands.

Cross-over selling is a common strategy. Consumers are no longer surprised when two completely different businesses launch a limited-edition collaboration.

That changes how people perceive brands.

Based on the reports currently available, one of the possible issues in the Louis Vuitton vs Molly Tea dispute appears to be whether consumers, upon seeing Molly Tea’s flower device, might reasonably assume there was some form of commercial relationship between the two businesses.

Not necessarily that Louis Vuitton had started selling milk tea.

But perhaps that:

• Louis Vuitton had authorised the logo.

• Molly Tea was part of a limited-edition collaboration.

• The luxury brand had licensed its design.

• There was an official partnership or endorsement.

That is a very different kind of confusion.

Instead of asking, “Who made this product?”, the question becomes:

“Are these two companies connected?”

Whether the Court ultimately based its decision on this reasoning, and precisely how much weight it gave to this issue, will only become clear once the full written judgment is publicly released.

Nevertheless, the reported discussions surrounding the case have brought an important trademark principle into the spotlight—one that many businesses have never considered.

Trademark Infringement Isn’t Always About Competing Products

Many business owners have a simple understanding of trademark law. If both businesses sell similar products, there may be infringement. If they operate in completely different industries, there shouldn’t be a problem.

Most of the time, that way of thinking works reasonably well.

But not always.

Imagine opening a café called Tesla Café.

You’re not manufacturing electric vehicles.

You’re simply selling coffee.

Would customers genuinely believe Tesla had suddenly become a coffee company?

Perhaps not.

But they might reasonably wonder whether Tesla had opened a themed café, licensed its brand or entered into a commercial partnership.

That uncertainty itself may become legally significant.

The same concept can arise if someone opens:

• an “Apple Workspace”;

• a “Nike Fitness Café”;

• a “Disney Learning Centre”.

The products are different.

The businesses are different.

Yet there is a possibility that consumers may still assume there is some form of commercial connection.

This is why famous trademarks often receive broader protection than many business owners realise. The trademark laws may extend protection to well-known trademark.

Again, exactly how this principle influenced the Court in the Louis Vuitton case remains uncertain until the complete judgment is available.

But the discussion generated by the case is already prompting many entrepreneurs to rethink what trademark infringement actually means.

Then Why Did So Many People Support Molly Tea?

If the legal issues are relatively straightforward, why did public opinion appear to lean heavily in Molly Tea’s favour?

Because the lawsuit quickly became about something much bigger than trademarks.

Across Chinese social media, many users argued that the disputed flower resembled decorative motifs that had existed in Chinese culture for centuries.

Some pointed to traditional architectural patterns.

Others compared it with ancient ornamental designs, ceramics and historical artwork.

The conversation shifted away from legal rights and towards cultural identity.

Many people began asking:

Can anyone really claim exclusive rights over a flower?

It is an understandable question.

But it also oversimplifies the legal issue.

Trademark law generally does not protect the broad idea of a flower.

Nor does it prevent businesses from drawing flowers altogether.

Instead, trademark protection is granted to a particular sign or particular representation that has been registered and functions as an indicator of commercial origin.

That distinction is subtle.

Unfortunately, it is also easy to lose amid the speed of online debate.

A Flower Can Belong to Everyone. A Trademark Cannot.

Consider another example.

Nobody owns the idea of a star. Nobody owns the concept of a circle. Nobody owns the colour red.

Yet certain combinations of shapes, colours and design elements can become legally protected trademarks because consumers eventually associate them with a particular business.

The same principle applies to floral designs.

A four-petal flower, viewed in isolation, may be a common artistic motif.

Whether one specific four-petal flower device is legally too close to another registered trademark is a completely different question.

That is precisely why courts examine the overall appearance of the competing marks rather than asking whether individual design elements exist elsewhere in history.

Without the full judgment, we do not yet know exactly how the Court compared the two logos or which visual features it considered most significant.

Those details will likely become one of the most closely studied aspects of the case once the judgment is published.

Another Interesting Twist: Molly Tea Had Reportedly Tried to Register Its Own Logo

One detail that has received less attention outside the intellectual property community may ultimately prove to be one of the most important.

According to publicly available reports, Molly Tea had previously attempted to register its flower device. The application was reportedly refused.

That fact does not automatically determine whether infringement occurred. A refused trademark application is not the same as a court judgment.

However, from a commercial perspective, it raises an interesting question.

If a trademark application has already encountered objections, should a business continue investing heavily in that branding?

Imagine building hundreds or even thousands of stores around a logo after receiving notice that similar earlier trademark rights already exist.

Even if you genuinely believe your logo is different, you are increasing the commercial risk.

If litigation eventually follows, changing your branding becomes far more expensive than changing it at the design stage.

That may be one of the biggest commercial lessons hidden inside this dispute.

Perhaps the Biggest Cost Isn’t the RMB10 Million

The reported damages naturally dominated the headlines. But imagine for a moment that the first-instance judgment is ultimately upheld after all appeals.

For Molly Tea, the financial implications could extend well beyond the reported compensation.

A nationwide brand does not simply change a logo overnight. Every outlet may need new signboards. Every takeaway cup may require redesign. Packaging, uniforms, websites, mobile applications, loyalty programmes, promotional materials and franchise documents may all need updating. The operational cost of rebranding thousands of customer touchpoints could, in some circumstances, exceed the damages awarded by the court.

That is why experienced brand owners often describe trademark clearance as one of the cheapest investments a growing business can make.

Because once a brand becomes successful, changing it is rarely just a legal exercise. It becomes a commercial one.

And that is where this story becomes particularly relevant, not just for multinational corporations, but for every entrepreneur who is building a business they hope will still exist ten years from now.

What Can Business Owners Learn from the Louis Vuitton vs Molly Tea Dispute?

By now, you’ve probably realised this case isn’t simply about a flower. It’s about branding and risk management.

Whether the first-instance judgment is ultimately upheld or overturned on appeal, there are already several lessons that every business owner can take away.

1. Don’t Assume You’re Safe Simply Because You Never Intended to Register the Logo

One of the biggest misconceptions among small and medium-sized businesses is this:

“I’m not trying to register the logo. I’m just using it.”

Unfortunately, trademark infringement and trademark registration are two entirely different issues.

A business can infringe another person’s trademark even if it never files a trademark application.

Likewise, simply because a logo was designed in-house or by a freelance designer does not necessarily mean it is legally safe to use.

Before investing in signboards, packaging, websites and marketing materials, one question should always be asked:

Has anyone else already registered a similar trademark?

Doing a trademark clearance search is always worth the invention before your business expands nationwide or even worldwide. [Related Link: How to Do Trademark Search in 3 Simple Steps]

A trademark search is often one of the smallest investments you’ll make when building a brand, but it can save significant time, money and disruption if potential conflicts are identified early.

At IP Gennesis, we help businesses assess trademark risks before they commit to a new brand. Whether you’re launching a startup, expanding into new markets or refreshing your existing brand identity, we can help you understand the legal landscape before you invest in growing your business.

Building a successful brand takes years. Spending a little time protecting it from the beginning is often time well spent.

2. Trademark Infringement Isn’t Always About Selling Similar Products

If there is one lesson this case may teach more clearly than any other, it is this:

Trademark disputes are not always confined to businesses selling the same type of goods or services.

Many entrepreneurs still think: “I’m in a different industry, so there shouldn’t be a problem.”

Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it isn’t.

As brands become stronger, consumers begin associating them with experiences, collaborations and lifestyles rather than just products.

Today’s consumers regularly see luxury brands collaborating with cafés. Fashion labels opening restaurants. Technology companies partnering with hotels. Sports brands launching lifestyle products.

Against that backdrop, the question may no longer be whether consumers think both products come from the same factory.

Instead, the issue may become whether consumers believe there is an official commercial relationship between the two businesses.

Whether that ultimately formed part of the Court’s reasoning in this case remains to be confirmed once the full written judgment becomes available.

But the discussion itself serves as a useful reminder that trademark law continues to evolve alongside consumer behaviour.

3. The Bigger Your Business Becomes, the More Expensive Rebranding Gets

Imagine changing your logo when you operate one shop. It’s inconvenient.

Now imagine changing it across 2,000 outlets. every cup, takeaway bag, signboard, delivery app, franchise manual, loyalty card, social media account and every customer who has come to recognise your business through that visual identity.

The legal damages reported in this case attracted the headlines. But commercially, many businesses would probably fear the rebranding exercise even more.

That is why experienced entrepreneurs often view trademark clearance as an investment rather than a legal expense. The larger your business becomes, the more valuable certainty becomes.

4. Large Brands Protect More Than Their Products

Some people have asked whether Louis Vuitton was being overly aggressive. Others believe the company was simply doing what every successful brand owner should do.

Whichever view one takes, one commercial reality remains. Successful brands invest enormous time, money and effort building consumer recognition. If they fail to enforce their trademarks when they believe those rights are being infringed, they risk weakening the distinctiveness of their brand over time.

That is why major companies often monitor trademark filings around the world. They oppose applications. They send cease-and-desist letters. They negotiate. And sometimes, they litigate.

This is not unique to Louis Vuitton. It is standard brand protection strategy adopted by many internationally recognised businesses.

For entrepreneurs, the lesson is not simply that famous brands are willing to sue.

It is that successful brands actively manage and protect one of their most valuable business assets—their intellectual property.

So… Who Was Right?

That is probably the question readers ask most after finishing the story.

The honest answer is: It is still too early to say.

Once the complete judgment becomes available, it may provide much greater clarity. The reported decision is also subject to appeal.

Those details will undoubtedly be studied by intellectual property practitioners across China and beyond.

Until then, much of the public discussion is based on reported information rather than the Court’s complete reasoning.

Protect Your Brand Before It Becomes an Expensive Problem

Most trademark disputes don’t begin in court.

They begin years earlier, when a business chooses a name or logo without checking whether someone else already has earlier rights.

By the time a dispute arises, the brand may already be on your signboards, product packaging, website, social media pages and marketing materials. Rebranding at that stage can be far more costly than conducting a proper trademark search at the beginning.

Whether you’re launching a new business, introducing a new product, or refreshing your brand identity, taking a few proactive steps today can help avoid costly disputes tomorrow.

At IP Gennesis, we help businesses with:

• Trademark availability searches and risk assessments

• Trademark registration in Malaysia and overseas

• Brand protection strategies

• Trademark opposition and dispute management

• Licensing, franchising and trademark commercialisation

If you’re unsure whether your proposed brand or logo may conflict with someone else’s rights, speak to us before you invest heavily in building your brand.

A strong brand isn’t just memorable. It’s one you can confidently own, protect and grow.

Written by,

Lawrence Tan  

Registered Trademark, Patent and Design Agent

LL.B (HONS), CLP

Advocate & Solicitor

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

The discussion is based on publicly available reports and information available at the time of writing. As the fact is still developing, our analysis may therefore be updated if further official information becomes available.

Every trademark dispute turns on its own facts and circumstances. The legal issues discussed in this article should not be taken as applying to every situation or as a substitute for professional legal advice.

If you require advice on trademark registration, brand protection or a specific trademark dispute, you should seek legal advice based on your particular circumstances.