\n<\/p>\n
Popular Chinese tea chain Molly Tea has been ordered to pay 10.3m yuan (\u00a31.1m; $1.5m) in damages after a court ruled that its logo infringed a Louis Vuitton trademark, fuelling an online debate over copyright protection.<\/b><\/p>\n
Chinese media reported last week that a court in the eastern Jiangsu province ruled that the Shenzhen-based tea company had copied Louis Vuitton’s iconic four-petal flower monogram trademark.<\/p>\n
The decision has divided the public online in China, with a hashtag linked to the case drawing more than 400 million views and tens of thousands of comments.<\/p>\n
The BBC has contacted Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton for comment.<\/p>\n
On Thursday, a court in Suzhou, just east of Shanghai, ordered Molly Tea to stop using of the logo, issue a public apology and to pay damages to Louis Vuitton, according to Chinese state media China Daily.<\/p>\n
The outlet also said that Molly Tea and its affiliated firms had applied for multiple trademarks that were rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration.<\/p>\n
Only the trademark containing the Chinese characters for “Molly Tea” was successfully registered, China Daily reported.<\/p>\n
Many Chinese social media users have defended the design of Molly Tea’s logo, noting how many designs used in Western luxury brands have been inspired by Chinese artefacts.<\/p>\n
One commenter on the Weibo platform wrote in Mandarin that he will “drink a cup of Molly Tea daily” to show his support for the company.<\/p>\n
“Give me a break. They’re just taking advantage of the fact that our ancestors didn’t file for patents,” the commenter wrote.<\/p>\n
One user on RedNote, another Chinese social media platform, said: “Such basic geometric shapes have been used everywhere throughout history, not just China.”<\/p>\n
But some online supported the court’s verdict.<\/p>\n
A Weibo user said that those who back Molly Tea’s design should “study law first”, arguing that there is no dispute as Louis Vuitton had already registered the trademark.<\/p>\n
Another said Louis Vuitton is justified in defending its intellectual property and that other brands do not have the right to imitate it, regardless of their industry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n