[Video] ‘Bullying our ancestors’: Why Chinese netizens are boycotting LV

Louis Vuitton (LV) has sued Molly Tea, a Chinese milk tea chain, for trademark infringement. In the first instance, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled in LV’s favour, ordering Molly Tea and one of its franchise stores to pay US$1.5 million, change their logo and issue public apologies across their official channels.

The ruling has yet to take effect, and Molly Tea has said it will appeal. But the case has already triggered a strong backlash in China, with a striking share of public sentiment landing on Molly Tea’s side.

Supporters of Molly Tea have made several arguments. Some say the four-petal design at the centre of the case is too generic for any single company to own. Others point out that a milk tea chain and a French luxury house are unlikely to be confused.

The argument that gained the most traction, however, is that LV’s monogram was inspired by Chinese cultural motifs.

Comparisons have circulated widely between LV’s monogram and a Tang dynasty rosewood pipa, an instrument roughly 1,300 years old, as well as the baoxiang flower, a motif from the same period. Many are frustrated that a foreign company holds exclusive commercial rights over a design resembling centuries-old Chinese visual heritage, and can then use those rights against a Chinese brand.

Hashtags such as “LV, you have no one backing you” and “LV is bullying our ancestors for not registering trademarks” have spread across Chinese social media. Some consumers have responded by ordering from Molly Tea in a show of solidarity. One popular line sums up the mood: “Molly Tea lost the case, but won the hearts.”

Not everyone has sided with Molly Tea, however. A minority argue that LV was simply exercising its legal rights, and that Molly Tea’s own conduct makes it a weak test case for the broader cultural ownership argument.

When Molly Tea launched in 2021, its logo featured Chinese characters and a jasmine bud, a softer, more traditional aesthetic. The black four-petal design at the heart of the lawsuit only appeared after a rebrand in the second half of 2024. Earlier that year, the company had attempted to register several versions of the same design, but most applications were rejected. It rolled out the design across its stores regardless.

This is where the principle of “first to file” comes in. Trademark law does not protect the origin of an idea, but a mark’s ability to identify a specific brand. LV’s monogram has been registered in China for decades, and the company secured protection in the food and beverage category in 2021, three years before Molly Tea attempted, and failed, to register a similar design.

Even so, criticism has continued to escalate.

Public frustration initially directed at LV has expanded to the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court, with some commentators accusing it of favouring a foreign brand or even alleging bribery. These claims say less about the court’s conduct than about how quickly the case has come to be seen as a test of where the system’s loyalties lie.

From there, criticism has moved further upstream to China’s intellectual property authorities. Many are asking a more pointed question: how was a design resembling elements of Chinese heritage approved for trademark registration in the first place? Some commentators say they can accept LV registering its monogram as a whole, the composite arrangement that defines the brand’s identity. What they reject is the idea that a single, standalone element within that pattern, the four-petal flower alone, can be protected as if it belongs exclusively to LV. Some have even called for the trademark to be revoked.

By this point, the dispute is no longer simply China versus a foreign brand. It has turned inward, dividing Chinese netizens into two camps. One argues from a legal standpoint: the ruling is sound and Molly Tea should have known better. The other argues from a cultural and national perspective: some things, such as motifs rooted in Chinese heritage, should never be subject to private ownership. Each side accuses the other of either ignoring the law or adopting an overly Western-centric stance.

For businesses, the case highlights a difficult balance between protecting intellectual property, respecting cultural sensitivities and creating original designs.

But the bigger question goes beyond LV and Molly Tea: how can cultural heritage be protected in a modern commercial world without turning it into something no one else can use? It is a challenge not only for China, but for cultures everywhere.

Related: [Big read] Too ‘cool’ to resist: China’s soft power captivates Taiwan’s youth | [Video] Chinese brands making waves in Singapore’s saturated beverage market