LV won the trademark dispute with Jasmine Milk White, but why did it turn into a PR disaster?

Executive brief

Core judgment: Under the base case, the second instance is highly likely to uphold the infringement finding but reduce the compensation amount. LV will face a solidified impression of winning on legal grounds but losing in public sentiment, as a legal victory cannot automatically translate into brand recognition.

Stance landscape: Key stakeholders exhibit a binary rift between legal rationality and public emotion. Opponents question the lack of communication, supporters emphasize institutional foundations, and neutrals focus on the tension over cultural discourse power.

Maximum risk: The strategy of silence after the judgment leads to a loss of narrative control for the brand. The implicit damage from being labeled with cultural hegemony may translate into financial performance impacts and is difficult to repair through short-term measures.

Turning-point signals: Watch whether non-litigation-oriented China culture dialogue activities are launched in the coming months and the direction of social media sentiment, or whether regulators issue new guidelines on trademark examination for traditional patterns.

Recommended actions: Abandon the inertia of single legal-driven approaches. Publish a white paper on cultural dialogue that transcends the case itself before and after the second instance, proactively reconstructing local narratives to rebuild emotional connections.

This executive brief is a summary of the full report's conclusions; see the corresponding chapters in the main text for the basis and sources of each judgment.

Distribution of key stakeholder stances: A binary rift between legal correctness and emotional opposition

The simulation statistics based on the proposition 'LV should maintain its response strategy for the trademark case in the Chinese market' show a significant divergence in key stakeholders' stances: among 28 valid posts, opponents account for 42.9% (12 posts), while supporters and neutrals each account for 28.6% (8 posts each). This distribution is not a simple matter of right versus wrong, but rather a binary rift between legal rationality and public emotion within a specific context. The opposition camp, mainly composed of netizens, the founder of Jasmine Milk Tea, and some business observers, does not primarily deny the fact of infringement; instead, it questions LV's communication gap after winning the lawsuit, characterized as 'winning the case but losing the narrative.' The support camp, represented by legal professionals and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), emphasizes upholding the principle of prior registration and the legitimacy of judicial procedures. The neutral camp, such as ifeng.com and the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, focuses more on the structural tension between procedural justice and the struggle for cultural discourse.

Those opposing the maintenance of the status quo believe that LV's current 'purely legal-driven' strategy has major blind spots in the context of Chinese social media. A simulation character modeled after the founder of Jasmine Milk Tea stated bluntly that although the brand's overnight change to a colorful logo was criticized as capitalizing on hype, it at least demonstrated a 'willingness to speak out,' whereas LV's silence during the three-day golden response period after the judgment was interpreted as 'arrogance of a large corporation' rather than prudence. (Source: simulation) A Huxiu simulation character further pointed out that this is not a legal error but a public relations failure; abandoning the opportunity to define its own story is almost an irreversible loss, leading to the solidification of the narrative framework of 'big brands bullying small domestic products.' (Source: simulation) Notably, the opposition did not completely negate LV's legal rights, but opposed its single-dimensional strategy of equating legal victory with brand identity.

Those supporting the maintenance of the strategy adhere to legal bottom lines and compliance logic. A legal professional simulation character emphasized that the court adjudicates on similarity of marks and likelihood of confusion, not on the source of design inspiration; Jasmine Milk Tea's continued commercial use across more than 2,400 stores nationwide after its trademark application was rejected constitutes a clear chain of evidence for subjective fault, which is the jurisprudential basis for the judgment. (Source: simulation) A CNIPA simulation character also reiterated that trademark examination follows statutory standards, which belong to a different category from cultural tracing; any discussion regarding the origin of patterns should not interfere with respect for the principle of prior registration. (Source: simulation) This stance holds that adjusting the rights protection strategy due to public opinion pressure would shake the institutional foundation of intellectual property protection. Especially against the backdrop of international brands generally strengthening their awareness-based rights protection in China (Source: material), LV's persistence holds industry demonstration significance.

The concerns of neutral wait-and-see observers transcend individual case wins or losses, pointing to deeper systemic contradictions. An ifeng.com simulation character observed that this case is essentially a frontal clash between Western trademark rules and Chinese anxiety over cultural tracing; the public's inquiry into whether the 'four-leaf flower' originates from the Tang Dynasty Baoxiang flower reflects an increased sensitivity to cultural discourse. (Source: simulation) A Suzhou Intermediate People's Court simulation character repeatedly clarified that the ruling is based solely on legal elements and does not evaluate commercial behavior or cultural origins, calling on all parties to respect judicial independence. (Source: simulation) This stance neither blindly sides with emotions nor simply recites legal provisions, but prompts decision-makers: LV's strategy evaluation cannot be detached from Chinese society's composite expectations for 'fairness' and 'cultural dignity'.

Key divergence points and key uncertainties: The clash between the first-to-file principle and anxiety over cultural origins

Core Misalignment Between Legal Facts and Public Perception: The Principle of First-to-File Meets Cultural Origin Anxiety

The most significant divergence in this case does not stem from disputes over the infringement facts themselves, but rather from a complete disconnect between the legal evaluation system and the social emotional evaluation system. From a legal perspective, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court's ruling logic is rigorous and clear: the core of the court's review was whether "the marks are similar" and "whether they cause confusion among the relevant public," rather than the art historical origins or cultural roots of the graphic patterns. (Source: simulation) After Moli Naibai's trademark application was rejected, it continued large-scale commercial use across more than 2,400 stores nationwide; this fact constitutes a key chain of evidence for determining subjective fault, and among the seven registered trademarks held by LV, one indeed covers Class 43 catering and accommodation services, providing a legal basis for cross-class protection. (Source: material) However, in the public opinion arena, this rigorous legal logic was completely suspended. The focus of public discussion quickly shifted from "whether it constitutes infringement" to a struggle for cultural sovereignty over "who exactly owns the four-leaf flower." Multiple media reports indicate that many netizens believe LV's four-leaf floral design is highly similar to China's traditional "Tang Dynasty Baoxiang Flower" or "Persimmon Seed Pattern," questioning its appropriation of public cultural symbols by leveraging the Western trademark registration system. (Source: verified online, url: sohu.com) This cognitive misalignment led to a paradoxical situation: LV won an indisputable victory in law, yet lost the ability to define the legitimacy of its own actions in public narrative. A simulation role based on Huxiu precisely summarized this dilemma: "LV won the legal provisions, but ceded the story; Moli Naibai lost the judgment, but gained the narrative." (Source: simulation)

Divergence in Evaluating Response Strategies: The Correctness of Legal Compliance vs. Failure of Brand Communication

Regarding the proposition that "LV should maintain its current response strategy," the divergence centers on the characterization of "silence" and "restraint." Those supporting the status quo argue that LV's prudence after the first-instance judgment and before the initiation of the second-instance proceedings demonstrates respect for the Chinese judicial process and represents the appropriate posture for a multinational enterprise defending its rights through compliance. A simulation role based on legal professionals emphasized that trademark law protects first-to-file rights and market order, and should not waver in its rule-of-law foundation due to public pressure. (Source: simulation) However, those opposing the status quo point out that this purely legalistic mindset constitutes a serious strategic error within the context of Chinese social media. During the three-day golden window for response following the judgment, LV only had customer service reply with "feedback recorded," missing the window to proactively define the brand narrative, which solidified the emotional label of "big brand bullying small domestic goods." A simulation role based on Ifeng observed that this reflects not only a lack of public relations skills but also a misjudgment of the structural change involving the rising sensitivity to "cultural discourse power" in the Chinese market. (Source: simulation) Notably, even in subsequent statements, although LV clarified that the Monogram design lineage includes multicultural integration and admitted failing to fully anticipate the rhythm of public opinion, its core argument remained within the legal-commercial logic that "trademark rights are the result of long-term investment and market recognition," failing to effectively address the public's emotional concerns regarding "cultural appropriation." (Source: simulation) This indicates that the essence of the current divergence is a conflict between two sources of legitimacy: one is formal legitimacy based on statutory law and the registration system, and the other is social legitimacy based on cultural identity and emotional resonance. When these two collide, relying solely on the former cannot automatically secure the latter.

Key Uncertainty Variables Determining the Trajectory

The ultimate impact of this case depends not only on the second-instance judgment but also on the following three variables, which are currently undetermined but will dictate the path for LV's long-term reputation repair in China:

• The magnitude of adjustment and depth of reasoning in the second-instance compensation amount: Although overturning the infringement determination is extremely difficult, whether there will be a substantive reduction in compensation, and whether the second-instance judgment will provide a more persuasive explanation of the "boundaries of cross-class protection" and the "degree of subjective fault," will directly affect public perception of judicial fairness. Signals to watch: Monitor the detailed discussions in the second-instance judgment regarding the basis for calculating compensation, and whether any new factual findings distinct from the first instance emerge.
• LV's capacity to reconstruct its subsequent brand narrative: Whether LV can break out of the single paradigm of "legal statements" and re-establish an emotional connection with Chinese consumers through cultural dialogue, design origin exhibitions, or collaborations with local creators, without denying its legal stance, is key to reversing the situation of "winning the lawsuit but losing hearts." Signals to watch: Observe whether LV launches non-litigation-related Chinese cultural brand activities within the next 3-6 months, and track changes in the sentiment of comments on its social media platforms.
• The speed of evolution in the protection system for traditional cultural symbols: The institutional anxiety exposed by this case regarding the "privatization of public cultural symbols through registration" may drive substantive responses at the legislative or administrative levels, fundamentally altering the public opinion soil for future similar cases. If institutional patches are delayed, similar cases of "legally correct but emotionally Resist (opposed)" are likely to recur. Signals to watch: Monitor whether the China National Intellectual Property Administration or legislative bodies issue new guiding opinions on "review standards for trademark registration of traditional patterns" or initiate research on amending the law.

Risk warning: Implicit erosion of brand assets under a silence strategy

Public Backlash and the Silent Loss of Brand Narrative Control

LV’s silence during the "golden 72 hours" after the verdict has caused irreversible damage to brand assets. Although simulation characters based on LV explained that the silence stemmed from prudent respect for judicial procedures rather than arrogance (Source: simulation), this strategy was severely misread in the context of Chinese social media. Relationship map facts show that the Weibo topic "LV, You Are Left Alone Behind" quickly trended, with many netizens supporting Jasmine Milk White by posting receipts, shaping it as a "domestic brand bullied by foreign giants"; meanwhile, LV’s response was limited to customer service stating "feedback has been recorded," which public opinion characterized as a "PR disaster." (Source: material) This silence not only surrendered the window to define its own story but also handed over the initiative of brand narrative. In the simulation, a character from Huxiu pointed out that forfeiting the opportunity to define its story in the public opinion arena could cause hidden damage to long-term brand cognitive building. (Source: simulation) For LV, which is at the milestone of its 130th anniversary and urgently needs to strengthen cultural resonance, this damage is more lethal in the long term than the 10.3 million yuan compensation.

"Legal Correctness" Cannot Offset the Emotional Label of "Cultural Appropriation"

The greatest risk exposed in this case is that winning on legal grounds failed to halt the erosion of brand reputation caused by accusations of "cultural appropriation." Although the court’s judgment was based on trademark similarity and prior registration principles, without reviewing the cultural origins of the graphics (Source: simulation), public discussion has completely detached from the legal framework, shifting to a debate over cultural sovereignty regarding whether the four-leaf clover originated from the Tang Dynasty’s Baoxiang flower. Relationship map facts indicate that some netizens questioned whether LV’s four-leaf clover logo derived from traditional Chinese patterns, reconstructing commercial rights defense as a narrative of cultural hegemony. (Source: material) Verified online materials also confirm that Gen Z consumers are highly sensitive to the value identity of luxury goods; the collision between classic symbols and innovative elements easily triggers public opinion risks, and Chinese consumers hold strong expectations and scrutiny attitudes toward "Chinese-style" elements. (Source: verified online, 163.com) When LV is viewed as an outsider "plundering local cultural symbols," its core "dream-making ability" and emotional premium as a luxury brand face fundamental Waver (shaking).

The Double-Edged Sword of Competitive Landscape Changes and Compliance Demonstration Effects

LV’s high-profile rights defense has established an industry benchmark but may also accelerate differentiated breakthroughs by competitors and defensive innovations by domestic brands. On one hand, LV’s action is consistent with its previous crackdown on bag disassembly cases in Hangzhou, aiming to prevent second-hand modified products or cross-boundary imitators from seizing the symbolic definition power in consumers' minds (Source: material), which is strategically necessary to maintain its core assets globally, especially in China. Brands such as Chanel and Hermès are taking similar actions (Source: material), indicating that top luxury brands are collectively entering the stage of "cognitive rights defense." On the other hand, characters representing legal professionals in the simulation warned that this case has transcended individual incidents, sparking widespread public discussion on intellectual property compliance and cultural discourse power (Source: simulation). If LV continues to respond solely with legal logic, it may force domestic new consumption brands to accelerate the original transformation of visual symbols, potentially even spawning alternative high-end symbol systems with greater legitimacy in Chinese culture, thereby weakening LV’s monogram pattern’s exclusive status among young consumer groups in China in the medium to long term.

The Realistic Possibility of Public Opinion Crisis Transmitting to Market Value

The current reputational damage has a potential path to converting into financial performance and cannot be ignored. An article published by AllBright Law Offices in May 2026 explicitly stated that under the normalization of multi-dimensional regulation, traditional PR models have failed; a single negative trending topic can evaporate billions of yuan in corporate market value, directly linking public opinion crises to legal and economic accounts. (Source: verified online, allbrightlaw.com) Although the claim in the materials about LV’s China region annual revenue exceeding 40 billion yuan could not be traced to an original source, China’s status as the global growth engine for luxury goods is undeniable. If LV is continuously labeled with "cultural bullying," its brand preference among Gen Z and aspirational middle-class groups may decline, thereby affecting the commercial efficiency of future new product launches, co-branding collaborations, and channel expansion. This risk is not realized immediately but releases slowly in the form of attenuating brand momentum, making it harder to repair through short-term promotions or statements.

Recommended actions: Reputational management and legal coordination strategies based on scenario differentiation

Regarding the proposition that 'LV should maintain its current response strategy for the trademark case in the Chinese market,' based on the preceding analysis of the binary rift between legal victory and public opinion defeat, it is recommended that LV abandon its single-track 'legal-driven' inertia and shift to a dual-track strategy of 'legal bottom line + narrative reconstruction.' Given the uncertainty surrounding the second-instance outcome and Chinese consumer sentiment, action recommendations are deployed across three scenarios:

1. Base Case: Second instance upholds infringement finding but reduces compensation amount

This scenario represents the trajectory with the highest probability predicted by legal professionals at present (Source: simulation), wherein the court finds infringement established but deems the first-instance compensation of 10.3 million RMB excessive and adjusts it accordingly. In this situation, LV's core challenge is the entrenched impression of 'winning on legal grounds but losing on emotional ones.'

• For the Brand PR Team: Around the time of the second-instance judgment, release a "Louis Vuitton China Creative and Cultural Dialogue White Paper" or similar non-litigation statement that transcends the case itself. The content should no longer dwell on disputes over the ownership of the four-leaf flower graphic, but should proactively map out the design lineage of the Monogram pattern since its creation in 1896, highlighting its integration of diverse cultures (including Japanese elements) (Source: material), and announce the establishment of a special fund or exhibition plan supporting contemporary designs of traditional Chinese patterns. This move aims to transform the adversarial narrative of 'cultural appropriation' into a constructive narrative of 'cultural exchange,' filling the vacuum left by the silence during the critical golden response period.
• For the Legal Team: Maintain professional restraint during the second-instance trial and subsequent enforcement, avoiding emphasis on 'punitive' language in public forums. If the compensation amount is indeed reduced, publicly state 'respect for judicial discretion,' demonstrating trust in China's rule of law environment rather than arrogance (Source: simulation). Simultaneously, continue to monitor the actual usage of Jasmine Milk White's new colorful logo; if the new mark still constitutes substantial similarity, handle the matter through administrative complaints or other non-litigation means, avoiding initiating a new round of high-profile civil litigation that could trigger secondary public opinion backlash.
• Signals to watch: Monitor changes in the emotional word cloud regarding LV brand topics on platforms such as Weibo and Xiaohongshu, specifically whether negative labels like 'arrogant' and 'bullying' are diluted by neutral or positive terms like 'respect' and 'sincerity'; track market awareness of Jasmine Milk White's new logo and whether it continues to associate with LV for marketing purposes.

2. Best Case: Settlement reached between both parties during the second instance or LV successfully reconstructs the narrative

The trigger conditions for this scenario are Jasmine Milk White proactively seeking settlement due to operational pressures, or LV's cultural communication initiatives receiving positive interpretation from mainstream media and KOLs, shifting public opinion from 'opposition' to 'understanding.'

• For Senior Decision-Makers: If a settlement window opens, make 'cessation of use of the disputed mark + public clarification of design origins' the core clause, while moderately relaxing demands on compensation amounts. The settlement agreement can include a joint statement by both parties respecting intellectual property and cultural diversity, transforming individual case conflicts into positive examples for industry compliance education. This aligns with LV's consistent global strategy of protecting brand reputation while combating infringement (Source: material).
• For the Marketing Team: Leverage the 130th anniversary milestone to plan an exhibition themed "The Global Journey of Monogram," inviting Chinese designers and scholars to participate in curating, openly discussing the evolution and mutual learning of Eastern and Western patterns. Through endorsement by third-party authoritative voices, redefine LV's brand assets from 'exclusive rights' to 'commercial expression of shared cultural heritage,' fundamentally dissolving the emotional basis for sentiments of 'Western rule bullying Eastern aesthetics.'
• Signals to watch: Monitor the tone of reporting by mainstream financial and cultural media on LV's settlement or cultural activities; track changes in survey data regarding Gen Z consumers' favorability toward the LV brand; evaluate the conversion rate of attitudes toward LV within Jasmine Milk White's fan base.

3. Worst Case: Second instance upholds original ruling and public opinion continues to deteriorate

If the second instance fully upholds the 10.3 million RMB compensation and the narrative of 'LV bullying domestic goods' further ferments, potentially even attracting additional regulatory attention to foreign-related intellectual property cases, a crisis defense mechanism must be activated.

• For Government Affairs and Compliance Teams: Proactively report the legal facts and logic of rights protection in the case to market regulation departments and industry associations, submitting detailed evidence of trademark registration history and consistency in global rights enforcement (Source: material), preventing the individual case from being politicized as 'foreign capital suppressing national brands.' Communication efforts should focus on 'maintaining fair competition order in the Chinese market' rather than 'protecting privileges of foreign enterprises.'
• For Customer Service and Frontline Stores: Develop unified script guidelines to train staff to explain the brand's stance in a gentle, empathetic manner when facing customer inquiries, avoiding mechanical repetition of legal statements. Netizens expressed strong dissatisfaction with the cold response of 'feedback recorded' by customer service in the simulation (Source: material); emotional management capabilities at frontline touchpoints are more critical than official statements in this scenario. Simultaneously, suspend all marketing activities that might be perceived as 'showing off victory,' reducing the aggressiveness of brand exposure.
• Signals to watch: Closely monitor whether the National Intellectual Property Administration or legislative bodies issue new regulations or guidance opinions on the trademark registration of traditional patterns (Source: simulation); monitor abnormal fluctuations in search volume and conversion rates for LV products on e-commerce platforms; pay attention to whether other domestic brands emulate Jasmine Milk White to launch counter-public opinion offensives.

Regardless of the scenario, LV must recognize that in the Chinese market, a legal victory is merely a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, for brand protection. As pointed out by Jones Day in its analysis of the dilemmas faced by Chinese enterprises going global, intellectual property competition is ultimately part of commercial competition; claims of rights lacking localized narrative capacity easily fall into a structural dilemma of 'winning the lawsuit but losing the market' (Source: verified online, jonesday.com). The true lesson for LV's response this time lies not in the correctness of legal strategies, but in the failure to translate legal rights into cultural identity—the value of this lesson far exceeds the 10.3 million RMB compensation itself.

Materials and Sources

Verified Online Sources

• Behind the LV vs. Jasmine Milk White Infringement Case: Public Cultural Symbols Can Be Registered as Trademarks; LV Once Faced "Cultural Appropriation" Controversy_News_Protection_Florals
• Industry Report | China's Trillion-Yuan Luxury Market, Where Are the Potential Public Opinion Risks?|gucci|Bags|Luxury_Mobile NetEase
• A Negative Hot Search Erases 5 Billion in Market Value---The Legal Cost of Public Opinion Crisis, Have Companies Calculated It Clearly? - Professional Article - AllBright Law Offices
• Intellectual Property Dilemmas and Solutions under the "East Wind Blowing West" | Legal Perspective | Jones Day

Source of Materials

• news.china.com
• mp.cnfol.com
• huxiu.com