Summary of Key Points
This article reveals the truth behind recent LV-related controversies: Although LV won the first-instance lawsuit in the 10.3 million yuan infringement case against Jasmine Milk White, the compensation has not been received (the other party has appealed, and the money has not been transferred). LV's lawsuit against the National Intellectual Property Administration is not an act of arrogance; rather, it is a effort to protect the foundation of cross-category trademark protection. International court cases show that while LV's overall design is protected, individual elements (such as the four-leaf clover) cannot be monopolized. There is also distorted information in public opinion that deliberately portrays LV in a negative light. The article concludes that although LV's legal actions are legitimate, their frequent use of these rights has led to public dissatisfaction—the fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean it is considered justified by the general public.
Detailed Analysis
1. The 10.3 Million Yuan Compensation from Jasmine Milk White: A Victory in Judgment, but Not in Outcome
The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court ordered Jasmine Milk White to pay 10.3 million yuan in compensation. On the surface, it seems like a significant victory for LV, but there are three key details that indicate otherwise:
- Intentional Infringement Led to the Large Compensation: Jasmine Milk White applied for a similar four-leaf clover trademark in 2024, which was rejected by the Trademark Office on the grounds of similarity to LV's trademark. The court ruled that this was intentional infringement, resulting in the substantial compensation.
- Compensation Not Yet Received: This is only the first-instance judgment; Jasmine Milk White has appealed, and the second instance could take another year. The 10.3 million yuan is merely a legal ruling, not actual payment.
- The Losing Party Becomes More Popular: After losing the case, Jasmine Milk White changed its logo to a colorful one, which became a hot topic on social media. It also collaborated with Wang Sulong, leading to long queues at stores in multiple locations (a combination of public support and fan purchasing power), resulting in better business than before. LV has only received the legal ruling; the actual benefits have not yet materialized.
2. LV's Lawsuit Against the National Intellectual Property Administration: Not an Act of Aggression, but a Defense of Rights
Social media suggests that LV is “challenging the authorities” for suing the trademark office, but the truth is different:
- Contradictions in Similar Designs: An individual in Shantou applied for a four-leaf clover pattern trademark for luggage, which LV sought to invalidate. However, the National Intellectual Property Administration did not support LV's claim. Meanwhile, another application by the same person for a similar design in the clothing category was deemed similar to LV’s classic pattern and was also rejected.
- The Reason from the National Intellectual Property Administration: “The four-leaf clover is a traditional and widely used pattern with limited distinctiveness; it cannot be overly protected across different categories.” If this ruling stands, other companies could use this argument to defend against LV’s cross-category trademark claims (for example, using a four-leaf clover on a milk tea cup would not be considered infringement).
- A Routine Procedure: This is the sixth time LV has sued the National Intellectual Property Administration, with three victories and two losses. This is a common practice in the trademark industry; companies that disagree with the office’s decisions can file lawsuits as part of their legal defense.
3. International Court Cases: Not All LV Designs Are Protected
The claim that LV has lost all international cases involving four-leaf clovers is a myth. The reality is:
- Protected Overall Designs, but Not Individual Elements: LV lost cases in the EU (the court deemed the design too simple and lacking distinctiveness) and in Japan (a traditional Japanese pattern). However, it won a case in France, where Van Cleef & Arpels argued that LV’s jewelry copied their four-leaf clover design. The court agreed with LV, stating that the four-leaf clover is a common decorative element that cannot be monopolized.
- Differences Between China and Abroad: In China, the focus is on individual four-leaf clovers; LV won against Jasmine Milk White. However, abroad, there is a stricter stance against the exclusive use of such elements.
4. The “False Targets” in Public Opinion
There have been three instances of distorted information this month aimed at portraying LV as an aggressive entity:
- Misleading Reports about Building Lawsuits: LV was alleged to have sued a property development company for using four-leaf clover patterns, but in reality, it sued a fake LV store within that property; the developer is only held jointly responsible (the Huli District Court has clarified this).
- False Reports about the Shanghai Show: There were claims that LV’s show in Shanghai was met with resistance, but LV had no official announcements about this. The spring collection was actually held in New York in May, with Liu Yifei as a model.
- Misinterpreted Media Comments: A People's Daily article acknowledged LV’s rights but opposed the idea of monopolizing public resources; however, this was misreported as if the media was criticizing LV.
5. Legitimacy Does Not Equal Acceptance: LV’s Two Sets of Metrics
LV’s legal actions are valid (cross-category protection for well-known trademarks is a legal right), but legality does not equate to public acceptance:
- Legal Record: Over the past decade, LV has won nearly 900 lawsuits, averaging one every three to four days. Even a closed restaurant received a lawsuit notice, and LV has won in most of these cases.
- Public Opinion: Frequent legal actions have led to the perception that LV is overreacting and “bullying smaller businesses.” Public anger is a result of accumulated dissatisfaction.
Conclusion
LV has won many legal battles, but it has lost public support. While legality is a fundamental aspect, what truly matters is whether its actions are considered justified by the general public.