The intersection of luxury heritage and China’s hyper-competitive 'new tea' market has recently become a legal battleground. In a landmark first-instance ruling, a Chinese court ordered the tea chain Jasmine Milk White to pay 10.3 million RMB ($1.4 million) to Louis Vuitton (LV) for trademark infringement. The dispute centers on a four-petal floral motif that the French maison claims is synonymous with its global identity, while the tea brand argues it is a traditional aesthetic.
Legal experts suggest the court’s decision rests on two primary pillars: the status of LV’s 'well-known trademark' and the tea brand’s lack of 'good faith' in its design process. Evidence revealed that Jasmine Milk White had previously attempted to register similar floral logos, only to be rejected by the trademark office. Despite these warnings, the brand proceeded with a national rollout across its 2,400 stores, a scale of use that justified the significant eight-figure penalty.
The case has ignited a fierce debate on Chinese social media regarding the ownership of cultural symbols. Many netizens argue that the symmetrical four-petal design—known historically as the 'Baoxiang' flower—is a staple of Tang Dynasty art and traditional Chinese gardens. They contend that a Western brand should not be allowed to privatize a motif that has existed for centuries in the public domain of Eastern aesthetics.
However, legal analysts clarify that trademark law does not protect the original 'idea' of a pattern, but rather its function as a commercial identifier. While the Baoxiang flower belongs to the public, the specific execution and long-term commercial association established by LV create a protected legal boundary. The court found that Jasmine Milk White’s specific design was too close to LV’s registered trademark, crossing the line from cultural inspiration to commercial 'free-riding.'
This litigation is part of a broader, systemic effort by LVMH to safeguard its intellectual property in China, with the group filing over 1,000 lawsuits in recent years. While some view this as aggressive over-reach, it reflects a maturing legal environment where foreign brands are increasingly confident in seeking redress within Chinese courts. The ruling serves as a stark warning to emerging domestic brands that 'borrowing' the aura of luxury giants is a high-stakes gamble that is no longer tolerated.
As the tea industry faces saturation, brands have often turned to 'clout-chasing' designs to capture consumer attention. Similar controversies have trailed other players like Chagee, which was criticized for packaging that mirrored Dior’s aesthetics. The LV verdict suggests that as Chinese consumers pivot toward value-consciousness and originality, the era of building a brand through visual proximity to global luxury may be coming to a close.