Summary of Key Points
LV has filed a lawsuit against the new tea brand, Jasmine Milk White, for trademark infringement and won the first-instance trial (receiving compensation of 10.3 million yuan). However, netizens overwhelmingly supported Jasmine Milk White, which even saw an increase in business at some of its stores, resulting in a disconnect between the legal verdict and public opinion. This phenomenon reflects a conflict between two evaluation systems: judicial rules (which emphasize trademark registration priority and the prevention of confusion) and public sentiment (which questions the boundaries of cross-category protection and the privatization of cultural symbols), as well as highlighting the need for further improvement in the cross-category protection of well-known trademarks.
I. Case Outcome: LV Won the Lawsuit, but Lost Public Support
The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Jasmine Milk White had infringed on LV’s seven four-leaf flower trademark rights and ordered it to pay 10.3 million yuan in compensation. Yet, as soon as the verdict was announced, the hashtag “LV You Are Alone” became a trending topic on social media, with netizens criticizing LV for “bullying a smaller brand” and claiming it had “won the lawsuit but lost public favor.” Instead, more people went to Jasmine Milk White’s stores, boosting its business. This contrast between a legal victory and a loss of public support is the most striking aspect of this incident.
II. The Three Legal Reasons Behind LV’s Victory
LV’s success in the lawsuit was not due to its status as a major brand, but rather because it hit on three key legal points:
1. Cross-category Protection of Well-known Trademarks: LV’s four-leaf flower trademark has been in use for over 100 years and is globally recognized. The law allows it to prohibit others from using similar symbols in different industries as long as they could potentially confuse consumers.
2. Visual Similarity and Subjective Intent: The four-petal flowers on Jasmine Milk White’s logo are very similar to LV’s, and since Jasmine Milk White had previously applied for a similar trademark but was rejected, the court considered its continued use a clear case of “wilful infringement.”
3. Copyright Does Not Overrule Trademark Rights: Although Jasmine Milk White had registered its own four-leaf flower design as a work of art, trademark rights are based on first registration; copyright does not negate trademark infringement.
II. Two Main Questions Raising Public Support for Jasmine Milk White
Netizens’ opposition to LV is mainly driven by two concerns:
1. Is Cross-category Protection Excessive? LV operates in the leather goods and luggage industry, while Jasmine Milk White sells tea drinks—a completely different sector. Netizens believe LV is “abusing its status as a well-known trademark” by expanding the scope of protection too broadly.
2. Can Cultural Symbols Be Monopolized? Some have pointed out that LV’s four-leaf flower design may be derived from the Chinese Tang Dynasty’s Baixiang flower, a traditional decorative pattern. They question why a foreign brand should be able to register such a cultural symbol as a trademark and prevent others from using it.
IV. The Essence of the Conflict Between Law and Public Opinion: Rules vs. Emotions
Why is there this disconnect? It’s because two different sets of logic are at play:
- The Judiciary Focuses on Rules: The law only considers who registered the trademark first and whether it could cause confusion among consumers, regardless of cultural origins or brand size.
- Public Opinion Is Driven by Emotions: Netizens instinctively feel that a major brand is bullying a smaller one and that cultural resources should not be monopolized, leaning towards supporting the weaker party.
V. The Real Issue Behind Public Opinion: The Need for More Precise Protection of Well-known Trademarks
This incident also highlights a reality: international brands are increasingly using cross-category protection measures (for example, LV has sued shops selling duck blood products). However, there is no clear legal standard for how far cross-category protection can extend. With the rise in consumer demands and brand crossover, more detailed legislation is needed to define the scope and extent of cross-category protection, to avoid either insufficient or excessive protection.
In Conclusion: The disconnect between law and public opinion is common, but we should approach it rationally. We cannot dismiss the seriousness of the law based on emotions, nor can we ignore the issues reflected in public opinion. Rules must be upheld, and emotions should be taken into account. Improving the legal framework is the best way to resolve these conflicts.