Molly Tea: Backlash after firm ordered to pay Louis Vuitton $1.5m
Popular Chinese tea chain Molly Tea has been ordered to pay 10.3m yuan (£1.1m; $1.5m) in damages after a court ruled that its logo infringed a Louis Vuitton trademark, fuelling an online debate over copyright protection.
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.
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.
The BBC has contacted Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton for comment.
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.
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.
Only the trademark containing the Chinese characters for "Molly Tea" was successfully registered, China Daily reported.
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.
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.
"Give me a break. They're just taking advantage of the fact that our ancestors didn't file for patents," the commenter wrote.
One user on RedNote, another Chinese social media platform, said: "Such basic geometric shapes have been used everywhere throughout history, not just China."
But some online supported the court's verdict.
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.
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.