Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Popular Chinese tea chain Molly Tea has been ordered to pay 10.3m yuan (£1.1m; $1.5m) in damages after a court ruled its logo infringed Louis Vuitton’s trademark, fueling an internet debate over copyright protection.
Chinese media reported last week that a court in the eastern province of Jiangsu had overturned the trademark of the Shenzhen-based tea company Louis Vuitton’s four-petalled flower monogram.
The decision has sparked outrage online in China, with a hashtag related to the issue garnering more than 400 million views and tens of thousands of comments.
The BBC has contacted Molly Chai and Louis Vuitton for comment.
On Thursday, a court in Suzhou, east of Shanghai, ordered Molly Tea to stop using the logo, issue a public apology and pay compensation to Louis Vuitton, Chinese state media China Daily reported.
Molly Tea and its affiliates have applied for several trademarks that have been rejected by China’s National Intellectual Property Administration, the outlet said.
Only a trademark containing Chinese characters for “Molly Tea” was successfully registered, China Daily reported.
While many Chinese social media users defended Molly Shai’s logo design, they pointed out how many designs used in Western luxury brands are inspired by Chinese heritage.
One commenter on the Weibo forum wrote in Mandarin that he “drinks a cup of Molly tea every day” to show his support for the company.
“Give me a break our ancestors are using it as if they didn’t file a patent,” the commenter wrote.
“Such basic geometric shapes have been used everywhere throughout history, not just China,” said one user on RedNote, another Chinese social media platform.
But some online supported the court’s decision.
A Weibo user said that those who support Molly’s tea design should “study the law first”, arguing that there is no dispute as Louis Vuitton has already registered the trademark.
Another said that Louis Vuitton is right in protecting its intellectual property and that other brands have no right to imitate it, regardless of their industry.
