Summary of Key Points
Recently, LV has encountered two controversies regarding the "four-leaf flower" trademark: first, it won a lawsuit against the tea brand Jasmine Milk White at the end of June, receiving compensation of 10.3 million yuan; second, in July, it filed a lawsuit against the National Intellectual Property Administration due to dissatisfaction with its trademark decision. The public questioned LV's attempt to "monopolize a traditional design," but behind this move lies LV's necessity to protect its trademark rights. In a market where luxury goods sales are declining and brand growth pressure is increasing, trademarks, as core assets, play a crucial role. If their protection scope is reduced, it will directly affect the brand's scarcity and premium value. Despite the backlash from public opinion and the resulting decrease in store foot traffic and second-hand prices, LV has chosen to stand firm, as protecting its trademark is more important than short-term popularity.
I. The Two Lawsuits Are Different: One Involves Compensation, the Other Seeking Justice
Many people confuse LV's lawsuit against Jasmine Milk White with its lawsuit against the National Intellectual Property Administration, but they are fundamentally different:
- Lawsuit against Jasmine Milk White: This is a case of "infringement and compensation"—LV believes that Jasmine Milk White's use of the four-leaf flower logo is too similar to its own trademark and has stolen business from LV, thus demanding compensation (which it ultimately won, receiving 10.3 million yuan).
- Lawsuit against the National Intellectual Property Administration: This is an "administrative lawsuit"—in simple terms, LV is dissatisfied with the official decision and is seeking a court review. LV has previously opposed the registration of similar four-leaf flower trademarks multiple times, and most of these requests were approved by the National Intellectual Property Administration. However, this year, a trademark that was almost identical to previous ones but in a different category was approved, which led LV to file a lawsuit, hoping the court would reconsider the decision. This does not involve compensation.
Filing a lawsuit against the National Intellectual Property Administration is nothing new; the administration is sued more than 20,000 times each year (over 50 cases per day), and LV has done this five times before, with three wins and two losses. This is just a routine process for trademark confirmation and is not an act of audacity.
II. The Debate over the Four-Leaf Flower: Traditional Design vs. Trademark Rights—Why Do Law and Intuition Differ?
The public's confusion stems from the fact that the four-leaf flower is a traditional Chinese design (existing since the Shang and Zhou dynasties). It's important to distinguish between two concepts:
- Traditional Design: This is a public resource that can be used by anyone (for example, the four-leaf pattern on Suzhou gardens).
- Trademark: This is a "commercial identifier"—what the law protects is not the design itself, but who registered the design as a trademark first and uses it to distinguish their products. LV registered the four-leaf flower trademark in 1986, which has also been recognized as a "famous trademark."
However, LV's protection does not mean "all four-leaf flowers belong to me." It only applies to cases where the design is almost identical to its trademark and used on similar products or services. For example, using a simple four-leaf pattern on a teacup might not be a problem, but if it looks exactly like LV's and is used on a bag, it could be considered infringement.
The difficulty lies in the blurred boundaries. For instance, LV's attempt to protect the checkered pattern was rejected in the EU (as it is a common design), and it also lost a lawsuit against a century-old Japanese store that used a traditional grid pattern. This shows that the law balances "brand rights" with "public cultural resources," and LV cannot do as it pleases.
III. LV's Determination to Stand Firm: Trademarks Are the Lifeline of Luxury Brands
LV knows it will face criticism, but why does it fight for this trademark? Because for luxury brands, trademarks are like money-making machines:
- The value of luxury goods lies not in materials: A LV bag may cost only a few thousand in materials but is sold for tens of thousands because of its brand's "scarcity" and "status symbol"—the four-leaf flower logo is proof of its premium status.
- If trademark protection weakens, the brand loses value: If every teacup, clothing, or restaurant uses the same four-leaf flower design as LV, consumers will lose interest in the uniqueness of the logo, and LV bags will lose their premium value.
- Business is tough right now, so boundaries must be maintained: LVMH (LV's parent company) saw its revenue decline by 5% in 2025, with the Asian market (excluding Japan) dropping by 11%. Many physical stores have closed, and second-hand bag prices have plummeted (for example, the Carryall small size dropped from 23,000 yuan to 12,000 yuan). Protecting its trademark is the last line of defense for maintaining brand value; if it loses this, its core customers may stop buying.
IV. What If LV Wins the Lawsuits? The Real Challenge Lies with Consumers
LV's strategy is to "protect the trademark to protect the brand," but the reality might be more complex:
- Public backlash: The public may view LV as overreaching by trying to monopolize a traditional design, leading to a decline in brand popularity—there are fewer people lining up at LV stores in Shanghai, and some stores are even empty during peak hours.
- Cooling Second-Hand Market: A sharp drop in prices of popular bags indicates that consumers' expectations for the brand's value are declining, which is more concerning than short-term sales declines.
- Core Issues Remain Unresolved: Even if LV wins the lawsuits, it still has to address a question: "Why should consumers pay tens of thousands for bags with the four-leaf flower logo?" In the past, luxury appealed to scarcity and status, but today's younger consumers may value "cost-effectiveness" and "individuality," which cannot be guaranteed by legal actions alone.
In summary, while LV can win trademark lawsuits, it may not necessarily win back consumer trust.
Conclusion
The controversy over LV's four-leaf flower is essentially a battle between "brand asset protection" and "public cultural resources." For LV, this design is a lifeline; for the public, it raises the question of whether traditions should be monopolized. The court's decision is still uncertain, but LV faces more than just the outcome of the lawsuit—it must also convince consumers that the four-leaf flower, despite being ubiquitous, remains worth tens of thousands of yuan when printed on its bags.
(Note: The time mentioned in the article, such as 2026, is set according to the original news and does not reflect current reality.)