Summary of Key Points
LV has recently sparked widespread controversy over its trademark rights: on one hand, it just won a lawsuit against the tea brand Jasmine Milk White (ordering compensation of 10.3 million yuan, citing that the four-leaf flower logo resembled its own classic design); on the other hand, it has filed its sixth lawsuit against the National Intellectual Property Administration (due to a trademark objection being rejected). Over the past five years, LV has initiated 1,691 legal actions in China, covering industries such as milk tea, catering, and bars, even involving closed businesses and innocent third parties. The focus of the controversy is not on the legality of the claims but on the cultural origins of the LV classic design—the four-leaf flower. Netizens have discovered that this pattern originates from the Chinese Tang Dynasty's "Baoxiang Flower" and "Persimmon Stem Pattern," which were introduced to Japan by envoys sent during the Tang Dynasty, predating LV's trademark by over a thousand years. This incident highlights China's inadequate protection of traditional cultural symbols and has sparked public dissatisfaction with foreign brands monopolizing such heritage.
1. How Ubiquitous is LV's Trademark Protection? Even Small Businesses Are Affected
LV's trademark protection seems to have no boundaries: from milk tea shops (like Jasmine Milk White) to duck blood vermicelli stalls, from wine to bar services, there have been 1,691 lawsuits in the past five years, with 56 cases alone in 2026. The most heartbreaking examples involve small businesses. For instance, a restaurant in Nanjing had to pay 110,000 yuan in compensation (LV claimed 1.2 million yuan) for using similar floral patterns on its cake packaging and bar counter; another nearby duck blood vermicelli shop was also sued simply because it lent its business license to the restaurant for payment processing. In these cases, LV acts like a "symbolic police force," suing regardless of the size of the business or whether they intentionally copied the design—even if they were unaware that their use of the pattern matched LV's.
2. The Core of the Controversy: Are LV's Four-Leaf Flowers Really Chinese Traditional Patterns?
LV claims its design is inspired by Japanese badges, but netizens have provided evidence showing that the patterns on Dunhuang murals and Tang Dynasty pipas are identical to LV's four-leaf flowers. The Baoxiang Flower was popular during the Tang Dynasty, incorporating elements from the Neolithic period's persimmon stem patterns, Buddhist lotus petals, and Western regional scroll designs. A Tang Dynasty purple sandalwood pipa from Japan (brought by envoys) features a standard Baoxiang flower pattern, dating back more than 1,000 years before LV's trademark was registered. In other words, the "Japanese elements" LV uses actually originate from Chinese cultural heritage.
3. Why Don't the Public Accept the Courts' Rulings in Favor of LV?
The courts rule in LV's favor based on trademark law, which protects trademarks registered first, and the unique design of LV's four-leaf flowers (such as the curvature of the petals, proportion of the central dot, and symmetrical structure) is considered distinctive. However, the public sees it differently: these patterns have been used by Chinese culture for thousands of years—why should we not be allowed to use them just because LV has registered them? As one netizen joked, "I'm worried LV might sue my house for having a four-leaf flower on its brick wall"—the issue is essentially about the monopolization of public cultural resources by private brands.
4. Why Are Chinese and Foreign Judgments Different?
In Japan, courts have ruled that four-leaf flowers are traditional and lack distinctiveness, rejecting LV's trademark claims. The EU and the US also consider such patterns to be generic decorative elements that cannot be monopolized by a single company. Only in China does LV often win its lawsuits. This is not due to preferential treatment under Chinese law but because we failed to take preventive measures: LV registered the design first, and when Chinese businesses used similar patterns, they either didn't register them or had their registrations rejected but continued using them, leading to the courts having to rule according to the law. This reveals a lack of awareness about protecting our traditional symbols; by the time we react, it's often too late.
5. How Can We Protect Our Cultural Heritage?
A statement from Zhejiang highlights the issue that "having a gold mine doesn't mean you know how to extract it," pointing out a blind spot in the cultural and tourism industry. To address this, three actions are needed:
1. Establish defensive measures: Systematically document and digitize traditional patterns like the Dunhuang Baoxiang Flower and Suzhou garden windows to prevent them from being registered by foreign brands.
2. Bring symbols to life: Create cultural products, immersive experiences, and educational programs around these patterns—e.g., exhibitions on the Baoxiang Flower or digital collections—to help young people understand their cultural significance.
3. Collaborate for protection: Cultural and tourism professionals should work with legal and academic institutions to establish mechanisms for protecting public cultural symbols. We can't just sell Hanfu and fridge magnets; we need to act as guardians of our cultural heritage.
This incident is more than just a trademark lawsuit; it's a wake-up call that traditional symbols are not mere museum artifacts. We must actively protect and revitalize them. Otherwise, one day when foreign brands use our cultural elements against us, it will be too late.