The Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently issued a first-instance judgment in a trademark ownership dispute, completely rejecting all claims filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier, widely known as LV.
The court clearly stated in its judgment thatThe classic four-petal floral pattern that LV claims as its exclusive brand identifier traces its origins to traditional Chinese motifs such as the Baoxiang flower and persimmon calyx patterns, which have been passed down for thousands of years. These traditional designs are part of the public cultural heritage shared by all citizens, and no commercial brand has the right to monopolize them for exclusive enforcement.
The lawsuit originated from LV's claim that the four-petal flower graphic trademark previously registered by Huang Minyao, an individual business owner in Shantou, Guangdong, was highly similar to its own brand trademark. LV subsequently filed an application with the CNIPA to declare Huang's trademark invalid.
After thorough review, the CNIPA determined that there were clear differences between the two trademarks in terms of detailed design and layout logic. It concluded that ordinary consumers would not be confused under normal purchasing conditions, thereby upholding the validity of Huang Minyao's trademark registration and rejecting LV's invalidation request.
Dissatisfied with the ruling by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), LV sued the agency at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, seeking to overturn the previous decision. This marks the sixth time LV has initiated similar litigation over trademarks featuring comparable patterns.
After the first-instance judgment was made public, many netizens praised the court's fair decision, stating that it was entirely reasonable. They pointed out that LV's four-petal flower logo was originally inspired by ancient Chinese traditional patterns, and there is no justification for attempting to monopolize public cultural resources that have been circulated for millennia.
This ruling serves as a warning to all overseas brands attempting to appropriate public cultural resources through trademark rights. Public cultural heritage belonging to humanity can never be exclusively owned by any commercial brand. Brand identifiers created by misappropriating traditional patterns cannot legitimately prevent local businesses using similar traditional motifs from operating normally.