A Chinese court has just ordered Molly Tea—a fast-growing bubble tea chain with six locations in Bangkok—to pay luxury giant Louis Vuitton ¥10.3M (฿50M) for trademark infringement, marking one of the steepest intellectual property penalties in China's beverage sector.
Why This Matters
• Thailand shoppers: Molly Tea operates six Bangkok outlets, including at Siam Square's CentralWorld. The brand may face design changes or temporary closures if the appeal fails.
• Investors and franchisees: The ruling exposes how aggressively global brands police trademarks, even across unrelated product categories—a risk for anyone licensing or partnering with Chinese chains.
• Cultural context: The case has ignited debate over whether Western luxury houses can monopolize traditional Asian floral motifs.
The Court's Decision
On June 29, 2025, Suzhou Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Province ruled that Molly Tea and one of its Wuzhong District franchise stores violated seven registered graphic trademarks belonging to LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton. At the heart of the dispute: Molly Tea's four-petal flower logo, which the court found bore "confusing resemblance" to the Monogram Flower pattern designed by Georges Vuitton in 1896—a motif synonymous with the French house for more than a century.
The judgment compels Molly Tea to:
Cease all infringing use immediately.
Pay ¥10M in economic damages plus ¥300,000 in legal costs, totaling roughly $1.5M or ฿50M—equivalent to a year's rent on prime Bangkok retail space.
Publish formal corrections on its official website and six major social platforms: Weibo, WeChat, RedNote (Xiaohongshu), Douyin, and the brand's mini-programs.
Molly Tea has announced plans to appeal to a higher court, arguing that floral designs are part of China's public cultural heritage and that a tea chain poses no market confusion risk to a luxury-goods maker.
Inside the Logo Dispute
Louis Vuitton's position rests on its iconic LV Monogram Canvas, which layers interlocking initials with three repeating elements: a four-pointed star, a four-petal flower, and a diamond containing another four-pointed star. This pattern has remained unchanged since the 19th century and is recognized globally as shorthand for luxury. LVMH filed suit in May 2025, citing unauthorized commercial exploitation of its registered graphic marks.
Molly Tea's defense centers on several arguments. The Shenzhen-based startup—founded by Zhang Bochung in 2021—specializes in jasmine and floral-infused teas under the tagline "Eastern Modern." Its mascot, a cartoon character named Molly, is paired with a stylized four-petal flower that the company insists is a nod to jasmine blossoms, not French fashion. The brand attempted to register multiple flower-pattern trademarks with China's National Intellectual Property Administration starting in March 2024, but most applications were rejected; only marks combining the Chinese characters "Molly Tea" with the flower succeeded.
Publicly, Molly Tea has pointed out that four-petal florals appear throughout traditional Chinese architecture, textiles, and folk art—raising the question of whether any corporation can claim exclusive rights to such a widespread motif. On platforms like Weibo, some users have even suggested Louis Vuitton's own Monogram may have drawn on Qing-era porcelain patterns, though the company has never confirmed such links.
Trademark Dilution and the "Famous Mark" Doctrine
Legal experts in China emphasize that this case hinges on two principles. First, registered its trademarks first: Louis Vuitton secured its graphic trademarks decades ago, giving it the advantage of being first. Second, protection across different product types—even if consumers would never mistake a ฿120 bubble tea for a ฿120,000 handbag, unauthorized use of a similar mark can erode brand distinctiveness and implied exclusivity. Under Chinese law, "well-known trademarks" (驰名商标) enjoy broad protection to prevent exactly this kind of dilution.
The ruling reflects Beijing's broader push to demonstrate robust IP enforcement to foreign investors. China has steadily increased statutory damages for trademark violations, and the ¥10M award in this case—far above typical beverage-sector settlements—signals that courts are willing to impose penalties that sting.
Rapid Expansion, Heightened Scrutiny
Molly Tea's growth trajectory has been explosive. From a single shop in Shenzhen three years ago, the chain now operates more than 2,000 mainland stores and has entered seven countries, including Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The brand's first international outlet opened in New York in April 2024, generating ¥3.1M in month-one sales. In Thailand, Molly Tea has expanded to six Bangkok locations, establishing itself as a major player in the region's bubble tea market.
Backing this expansion: a ¥100M funding round led by Alibaba Local Life in October 2023 and a high-profile collaboration with Hello Kitty in May 2024, which moved over one million cups in five days. The brand's Instagram-friendly "Eastern Modern" aesthetic and mascot-driven marketing have resonated with Gen Z consumers across Asia and North America.
Yet speed has brought vulnerability. Molly Tea's trademark applications were largely filed after the brand had already scaled to hundreds of stores, leaving it exposed to challenges from established rights holders. The Louis Vuitton lawsuit—filed just one month after Molly Tea's first trademark filings—suggests the French house had been monitoring the startup's expansion closely.
What This Means for Thailand Residents
For consumers, the situation is clear: all six Bangkok locations remain open and operating as the company pursues its appeal. However, if Louis Vuitton prevails and seeks international enforcement, stores may be required to redesign branding or face temporary injunctions that could affect operations.
For investors and entrepreneurs, the case is a cautionary tale about due diligence on intellectual property. Franchisees and partners of fast-scaling Chinese brands should verify that trademarks are registered and defensible in every market. Thai business owners considering Molly Tea franchise opportunities should request copies of the company's IP registration certificates and monitor the appeal timeline.
For legal observers, the decision underscores that cultural heritage arguments rarely prevail when a competitor has prior registration and documented global recognition. While traditional motifs may be in the public domain in an abstract sense, their commercial deployment must not create consumer confusion or dilute established marks—a standard that China's courts are now enforcing with record penalties.
Public Debate and Cultural Tensions
Online reaction in China has been polarized. Nationalist commentators argue that Western luxury brands are overreaching, attempting to privatize design elements that predate their own corporate histories. Others counter that rule of law requires consistent IP protection, regardless of a defendant's nationality or industry.
The broader tension reflects a recurring friction in emerging markets: how to balance respect for traditional culture with integration into global trade frameworks that privilege first-to-file registration systems. For now, Chinese courts appear to be siding with established rights holders—a stance that may reassure foreign investors but frustrate domestic startups seeking to leverage local aesthetics.
What Happens Next
Molly Tea's appeal will likely take six to twelve months. If unsuccessful, the company faces not only the ฿50M payment but also potential cross-border enforcement actions by LVMH in markets where both brands operate—including Thailand. Louis Vuitton has historically been aggressive in policing its trademarks worldwide, and a favorable Chinese ruling strengthens its hand in other jurisdictions.
In the meantime, the case serves as a reminder that brand identity carries legal weight, and that even a four-petal flower—ubiquitous in nature and culture—can become a contested asset when billions of dollars in brand equity are at stake. For Thailand's retail and F&B sectors, the lesson is clear: when building a global brand, secure your trademarks early, conduct clearance searches rigorously, and be prepared to defend—or redesign—if a larger player pushes back.
