
Legal Doctrines and Practical Takeaways from Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea
This is the second analytical article regarding the LV and Jasmine Milk Tea case. Recently, under significant public pressure, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court released the full text of the judgment. A Chinese translation of the judgment can be found at the following link. Additionally, the industry has engaged in extensive commentary following the publication of the judgment. The 2025 trademark infringement decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier (LV) v. Molly Tea, rendered by the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court, has generated extensive international public discourse, much of which is predicated on misleading interpretations. These include assertions that the ruling confers monopolistic rights upon foreign brands over traditional Chinese decorative motifs dating back millennia, that consumer confusion between mass-market tea products and luxury leather goods is implausible, and that foreign rights holders encounter systemic prejudice within Chinese intellectual property (IP) adjudications. A significant portion of public commentary reaches conclusions without a thorough








