Can a Brand Own a Flower? From Cultural Symbols to Brand Assets: LV vs Molly Tea Case

09 Jul 2026

by Fredrick Xie

The LV v. Molly Tea dispute has unexpectedly made trademark law a public topic in China. Together with the discussion around 7-Eleven v. Nike and the online meme comparing Zhejiang University’s “求是鹰” (Qiushi Eagle / Truth Seeking Eagle) with Armani’s eagle logo, many people are now asking a similar question: can a brand really own a flower, a color combination, or an eagle?

The short answer is no. LV does not own all flowers. 7-Eleven does not own all combinations of orange, green, and red. Armani does not own all eagle designs.

But that is also not the real legal question.

The real question is whether a specific sign has acquired trademark significance through registration, use, reputation, and consumer recognition, and whether another commercial sign is being used in a way that may cause confusion, association, or unfair borrowing of that recognition.

This is where the legal discussion should begin.

1. Historical similarity is relevant, but not decisive

In the current online discussion, many commentators have tried to locate similar flowers, patterns, colors, or animal symbols in Chinese history. This instinct is understandable. Historical and cultural materials can sometimes be relevant. They may help show that a disputed element is common, decorative, weak, or part of the public visual vocabulary.

But historical similarity alone should not end the legal analysis. Trademark law is not a museum-origin test. It does not decide infringement simply by asking whether a similar shape once appeared somewhere in history. It asks more practical questions: what is the registered mark, what is the accused sign, how are they used in commerce, on what goods or services, how distinctive is the mark, and what relevant consumers are likely to think when they see it.

“This existed before” may be evidence. It is not, by itself, the conclusion.

2. It is not fair to blame a brand simply because the rights holder is non-Chinese

The recent debate should not become a reflexive criticism of non-Chinese brand owners.

If a non-Chinese brand has obtained trademark registration in China, used the mark for years, built consumer recognition, and enforces its rights through Chinese courts or administrative procedures, that should not automatically be described as cultural appropriation, legal bullying, or an attempt to “steal” Chinese tradition.

This is the same trademark system that protects Chinese brands when they are copied. Chinese companies also rely on registered trademarks, market reputation, acquired distinctiveness, and enforcement against confusingly similar signs. We cannot ask the legal system to protect Chinese brands when they are victims, but treat non-Chinese brands as unreasonable whenever they enforce a registered right involving a simple visual element.

The fair question is not whether the rights holder is Chinese or non-Chinese.

The fair question is whether the trademark is valid, whether its scope is reasonable, whether the accused sign is close enough, whether consumers are likely to form a commercial association, and whether the protection requested goes too far.

Those are legal questions.

3. If the public-domain argument is serious, it should be made through proper legal procedure

If a company believes that the asserted trademark is invalid, too broad, or lacks distinctiveness, there are legal tools to deal with that. It can challenge the trademark before CNIPA, submit historical materials, evidence of common decorative use, prior design references, and argue that the relevant element belongs to the public domain or should receive only a narrow scope of protection.

If necessary, the issue can further be brought before a Chinese court.

That would be a meaningful legal challenge.

By contrast, if the debate stays mainly at the level of “China had similar patterns before, therefore the non-Chinese brand should have no rights,” it may generate public attention, but it does not necessarily help build better trademark law.

The public domain should be protected.

Traditional cultural elements should not be casually enclosed by famous brands. But these arguments need evidence, procedure, and legal reasoning. They should not be reduced to a viral online formula.

4. Chinese consumer brands need legal readiness before the dispute begins

There is also a practical business lesson here.

Many fast-growing Chinese consumer brands are still underprepared for serious brand-protection disputes. They grow quickly through product design, social media, franchising, packaging, store decoration, and brand storytelling, but legal infrastructure often comes later.

That gap can be dangerous.

Trademark clearance may not be deep enough. Defensive filings may be incomplete. Design decisions may not be legally stress-tested. Use evidence may not be preserved. Opposition and invalidation strategies may be reactive. External counsel may only be called after the problem has already become a litigation crisis.

By then, it is already late.

Molly Tea has reportedly started recruiting legal counsel recently.

If this is accurate, it proves the point: a consumer brand cannot wait until it is sued by LV to discover that brand identity is a legal asset, not just a design asset. Serious brands need to clear their logos before nationwide launch, assess legal risk before turning a design into a franchise identity, file defensive trademarks, preserve use evidence, monitor competitors, and challenge questionable rights through CNIPA when necessary.

This is how serious brands protect themselves.

5. The real issue is balance, not nationality

Of course, famous brands should not be allowed to privatize common cultural symbols, traditional patterns, or ordinary decorative language. The broader and simpler the claimed element is, the more cautious courts and authorities should be. Trademark law should protect commercial meaning, not historical ownership. It should protect distinctiveness, not give anyone ownership over the public visual vocabulary.

But that principle applies to everyone: Chinese brands and non-Chinese brands alike.

The recent discussion is valuable because it shows that the Chinese public is paying real attention to brand protection, IP rights, cultural symbols, and fairness.

That is a good thing.

But legitimate questions deserve serious legal answers. If the trademark is invalid, invalidate it. If the judgment is wrong, appeal it. If the public-domain argument is serious, prove it through evidence and procedure.

A flower is not always a trademark. But once a flower has acquired strong commercial meaning, it is no longer just a flower either.

The problem is not that non-Chinese brands are enforcing trademarks in China. The problem is that too many companies only start treating trademark strategy seriously after they are sued.