Summary of Key Points
In 2026, LV sued the new tea brand Jasmine Milk White for using a four-leaf pattern, which was deemed an infringement. The first-instance judgment ordered Jasmine Milk White to pay 10.3 million in compensation. However, netizens noticed that this four-leaf pattern resembled traditional Chinese designs such as those from the Tang Dynasty and the precious lotus flower, raising concerns about foreign companies monopolizing public cultural symbols. LV has also filed over 27,000 legal cases, targeting businesses in completely unrelated industries like tea shops and duck noodle soup restaurants, leading to accusations of “bullying Chinese companies.” The article highlights that trademark laws are intended to prevent the monopolization of public symbols, but LV has successfully registered such patterns. Jasmine Milk White lost the case despite knowing the registration would be denied. It raises questions about how trademark protection has become a profit-making tool for some companies, potentially leading to the abuse of rights.
Detailed Analysis
Why Can't Public Symbols Be Registered as Trademarks?
The primary purpose of trademarks is to distinguish brands, so they must be distinctive. Universal patterns (such as triangles, checkerboards, or traditional designs) cannot be registered as trademarks, as this would allow one company to monopolize them and prevent others from using them. For example, LV’s attempt to register a two-colored checkerboard pattern was rejected by the European Court of Justice, which stated that such patterns are common to humanity and consumers would not associate them with LV. Similarly, China’s traditional four-leaf flower pattern should be considered a public symbol, but LV successfully registered it in China, leading to concerns about unfair rules being exploited by large brands.
Why Did Jasmine Milk White Lose the Case?
Jasmine Milk White did not simply use the four-leaf pattern; it had previously attempted to register it but was rejected by the National Intellectual Property Administration due to its similarity to LV’s well-known trademark. Despite this, the company continued using the pattern extensively across its stores nationwide. The court ruled that the use of the pattern created confusion among consumers, leading to a loss of the case. However, there is debate about whether the black-and-white four-leaf design on a white background would indeed be associated with LV.
Why Is LV’s Brand Protection Criticized as “Bullying”?
LV’s brand protection efforts are criticized for two main reasons:
1. Double Standards: LV uses similar patterns in its own products but sues Chinese companies for using them.
2. Cross-Industry Victimization: While LV’s past actions against counterfeit bags were justified, its recent lawsuits against unrelated businesses (such as tea shops and noodle restaurants) suggest a desire to monopolize the use of these patterns, rather than genuine brand protection. This has led to accusations of bullying smaller companies.
How Has Trademark Protection Become a Profit-Making Venture?
In an economic downturn, many companies are turning to trademark protection as a new source of revenue. They hire legal teams to file large numbers of lawsuits against small businesses. For example, British company “Tony” sued local hair salons and noodle restaurants for using similar names. This trend has led to a surge in intellectual property litigation, causing significant burdens on small businesses. The public’s dissatisfaction stems from the perception that trademark protection is being used to exploit smaller companies rather than to genuinely protect intellectual property.
In Simple Terms
The essence of this issue is that the global intellectual property system is designed to encourage innovation but has been exploited by large brands to monopolize cultural symbols. Public anger reflects dissatisfaction with rules that favor the powerful, preventing traditional designs from being owned by foreign companies and small businesses from being unfairly targeted. It is hoped that public opinion will pressure legal reforms to make intellectual property protection more equitable.