From "A Bowl of Noodles" to “A Four-Petal Flower”: Implications on Trade Mark Enforcement in China today

In the summer of 2026, two trade mark disputes in China drew significant public attention. Some legal commentators have wryly observed that 2026 may prove to be one of the most challenging years for trade mark law public education since the enactment of China's Trade Mark Law in 1982.

One case involved a domestic restaurant chain, Yujian Xiaomian (遇见小面 in Chinese characters, meaning “Meeting Little Noodles”), which sued a small individually-owned noodle shop using a similar name, only to withdraw the lawsuit and issue a public apology after the case went viral on social media. 

The other involved an international luxury brand, Louis Vuitton Malletier ("LV"), suing a tea beverage chain, Molly Tea (茉莉奶白), for trade mark infringement over a similar four-petal floral pattern. LV won first-instance damages of RMB 10.3 million, but the ruling triggered fierce public backlash that continues to this day. 

Both cases have transcended pure legal technicalities and evolved into public events, revealing a more complex enforcement landscape that warrants close attention from brand owners.

The "Little Noodles" Case

Yujian Xiaomian (“Meeting Little Noodles” or brand "Xiao Noodles”) is a restaurant chain established in 2014 and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Specialising in Chongqing-style noodles, it operates over 500 stores globally and has been included in Guangdong Province's List of Key Protected Trade Marks. 

In early June 2026, the chain sued a small noodle shop in Nanyang, Henan Province, named "Yujian Xiaomian" (渝见小面 in Chinese characters) for trade mark infringement, seeking damages of approximately RMB 7,000–8,000. Both signs consist of four Chinese characters, differing only in the first character, though the pronunciation is similar: the plaintiff's "遇" (Yù) means "meet; encounter," while the defendant's "渝" (Yú) refers to Chongqing's abbreviation. From a professional legal perspective, the infringement claim was not without merit, given the similarity of the signs and the identity of the services.

However, the case took an unexpected turn. The defendant, Ms. Mao, took to social media to express her distress after receiving the court's summons: "I sell a bowl of noodles for eight yuan. I'd have to sell at least a thousand bowls (just to cover the damages sought by the brand) – and that's before costs." She emphasised that both she and her husband are from Chongqing, and that they used "渝" (Yú) to indicate the authentic regional flavour of their cooking, not to imitate the plaintiff. She also noted that the plaintiff has no stores in her area, so there would be no likelihood of confusion. The video quickly went viral, and public sentiment overwhelmingly favoured the defendant, accusing the plaintiff of "bullying the weak." Amid the public outcry, the plaintiff's share price briefly dropped by more than 6% during trading.

The brand quickly issued a statement confirming that it had communicated with the defendant, withdrawn the lawsuit, and was re-evaluating its enforcement process. On 15 June 2026, the founder of the brand issued an open letter, calling the lawsuit a "major management error" and announcing that the company would transfer to the defendant, free of charge, a registered trade mark that was identical to the defendant's shop name.

The defendant's poignant remark—"eight yuan a bowl of noodles"—precisely struck the prevailing social sentiment during this period of economic downturn: ordinary people are struggling to make a living, and any unexpected blow can be a matter of survival. The stark contrast between a publicly listed company, for the sake of a negligible amount of damages, going after a small shop that depends on selling noodles for a few yuan a bowl to stay afloat was emotionally difficult for the public to accept.

Some commentators also suggested that the plaintiff, despite having a legally sound case, had "capitulated" too early, perhaps appearing overly hasty. Yet, by prioritising reputational risk over legal victory, the brand's decision cannot be said to be imprudent.

The “Four-Petal Flower” Case

In May 2025, LV filed a trade mark infringement lawsuit against Molly Tea. On 29 June 2026, the first-instance court found that Molly Tea's use of a four-petal floral pattern in its brand logo and store decoration infringed seven of LV's registered graphic trade marks. The court ordered Molly Tea to cease infringement and pay RMB 10.3 million in damages and legal costs. 

Crucially, Molly Tea had applied for similar floral pattern trade marks on multiple occasions since 2024, all of which were rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) due to similarity with prior marks including LV's registered marks, yet it continued to use the pattern extensively. The first-instance court therefore found that Molly Tea acted with "significant malicious intent".

LV registered the relevant pattern trade marks in China as early as 1986, and through long-term use, these marks have acquired a high degree of recognition. In recent years, LV has also ventured into the food and beverage sector. The pattern used by Molly Tea is visually highly similar to LV's trade marks, and its product packaging may also give rise to associations with LV's marks. The first-instance judgment is therefore considered legally well-founded by many legal professionals.

However, when the judgment was reported by the media on 2 July 2026, public reaction was starkly different – and overwhelmingly negative. As of 7 July, the Weibo (Chinese X) hashtag "LV sues Molly Tea for 10.3 million" had garnered 400 million views, and hashtags such as "#LV-YouStandAlone" were widely circulated. The controversy continues to unfold.

Public criticism centred on three points. 

First, the question of cultural symbols. Some commentators compared LV's four-petal floral pattern to traditional Chinese decorative motifs such as the baoxianghua (precious floral pattern) and shitiwen (persimmon calyx pattern) from the Tang Dynasty, questioning whether a foreign brand could appropriate elements of the public cultural domain and then assert monopolistic, exclusive rights over them through trade mark registration. 

The above arguments actually lacks merit under trade mark law, as cultural origin does not constitute a defence to trade mark infringement – courts examine visual similarity and likelihood of confusion, not design provenance, not design provenance. In fact, Molly Tea also attempted to register these patterns as its own trade marks. Furthermore, LV does not hold a monopoly, and non-trademark use of similar patterns by others does not constitute infringement. 

Second, the perceived power imbalance. Similar to the "Little Noodles" case, the disparity between an international luxury brand (with handbags priced at tens of thousands of yuan) and a local affordable tea brand (with drinks priced at around a dozen yuan) naturally inclined public sympathy toward the weaker party, creating a narrative of "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut." 

However, this narrative is equally untenable in this case — Molly Tea is no “underdog,” but a chain tea brand with over 2,000 stores, and it has recently filed multiple band-ownership lawsuits as the plaintiff against its partners in New York.

Third, LV's enforcement timing was questioned as "trolling." Some commentators suggested that LV deliberately waited until Molly Tea had opened over 2,000 stores before filing suit, in order to maximise damages. 

This criticism is also not well-supported – RMB 10.3 million is not exceptionally high in today's trade mark infringement awards, and there are numerous precedents with awards in the hundreds of millions.

Some public criticism went even further, accusing Chinese courts of being overly protective of international brand owners and citing examples where LV's earlier enforcement efforts in Japan and the EU were unsuccessful – the Japan Patent Office had found LV's relevant decorative pattern to be a traditional public-domain design and thus declined to prevent others from using it, while the EU had revoked its checkerboard pattern trade mark. This argument, however, is also untenable, as the facts of the Japanese and EU cases are quite distinguishable from the present case.

In response to the public backlash, the founder of Molly Tea stated that the company would appeal and has already modified the colour and design of its WeChat mini-program logo. The company has also urgently recruited an IP legal manager responsible for global trade mark portfolio strategy and infringement enforcement. 

LV, on the other hand, has not publicly responded to the controversy, but has recently posted job openings for a dispute resolution in-house counsel, and, a few months ago, was also recruiting a corporate public relations manager responsible for crisis communications and brand reputation management.

Affected by the public backlash in this case, several administrative trade mark lawsuits filed by LV against decisions of the CNIPA—ordinarily routine trade mark rights adjudication proceedings—have recently drawn disproportionate public attention and been interpreted negatively.

Implications for Brand Owners

These two cases offer a thought-provoking reference for brand owners enforcing their rights in China. What they share in common is that both had legal merit, yet both encountered fierce public backlash. Public sentiment does not always align with legal reasoning, but it can materially affect brand reputation—and reputation is precisely the core vehicle of trade mark value. Therefore, beyond legal facts, market perceptions, cultural memory, public understanding of fairness, and the survival anxieties of an economic downturn may be the variables that brand owners need to take particular account of when enforcing rights in China today.

Specifically, brand owners need to consider implementing certain measures to manage the potential risks that enforcement actions may entail.

First, establish a case screening and review mechanism. Cases involving small and micro businesses, or elements of public cultural heritage should be assessed for reputational risk before filing. While more and more brand owners tend to outsource enforcement to professional firms for efficiency, case selection still requires internal oversight to evaluate the reputational impact on the brand beyond purely legal considerations.

Second, expedite internal decision-making processes to avoid the reputational risk of "trolling" allegations. A common bottleneck for international brands is lengthy internal decision chains. As infringing entities can expand rapidly, delays not only reduce enforcement effectiveness but may also invite negative interpretations that the brand was "waiting for the target to grow before enforcing its rights."

Third, when a case touches on traditional cultural elements, brand storytelling must be prioritized. While legal proceedings are underway, brands should prepare clear documentation tracing the origins of their designs to address potential public concerns regarding the ownership of cultural symbols and proactively guide the narrative — rather than ceding control of the narrative entirely to public opinion, which could leave them unable to respond effectively once questioned.

Fourth, prepare contingency plans for scenarios where the legal outcome is favourable, but public opinion is not. In certain sensitive cases, legal victory and public support may not be simultaneously achievable. Rights holders should assess the risks, and plan strategies to address potential public backlash before initiating proceedings.

In short, the current environment for enforcement actions has become increasingly complex, and the focus of such efforts can no longer be limited to the facts of a case and the legal basis alone. Maintaining a keen awareness of prevailing social sentiment and formulating strategies based on that can sometimes have a greater impact on the ultimate outcome of public discourse than the legal soundness of the defense itself. This is crucial to maintaining a brand’s reputation amid controversy and has therefore become increasingly important.

Subscribe to receive more articles like this here.