On July 14, 2026, the official Weibo account of Chinese media outlet Cover News reported, under the title 'Is LV no longer considerate of the Chinese market?', that luxury brand Louis Vuitton (LV) had sued the China National Intellectual Property Trademark Office.

The article reported that following LV's victory of 10 million yuan (approximately 240 million yen) in damages in a trademark lawsuit against Chinese emerging tea drink brand 'Moli Naibai', it had sued the National Intellectual Property Administration. It also stated that the trial is scheduled to open on the 16th of this month at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

Furthermore, citing interviews with relevant lawyers, it mentioned that this lawsuit against the administration is an 'administrative lawsuit concerning the granting and determination of trademark rights,' and a dispute over the determination of the trademark's rights itself. It pointed out, 'Simply put, it is a stepping stone to remove obstacles in future trademark protection activities.'

Following this, it introduced the views of industry analysts on the impact of such aggressive trademark protection activities on the brand image and sales in the Chinese market. The core wealthy consumers of luxury brands do not change their purchasing behavior due to intellectual property disputes or public opinion backlash, thus, they presented the view that 'the risk of this series of public opinion movements impacting the sales of the brand's main business is extremely low.'

Furthermore, the article also mentioned that this is not the first time LV has sued the administration. It introduced that there have been at least five similar first-instance administrative lawsuits to date, and in three of them, LV's claims were recognized and the administrative decisions were revoked.

Regarding this matter, comments from Chinese internet users are divided into two categories: emotional opinions strongly opposing the brand's stance, and realistic opinions calmly viewing the law and market structure.

Users opposing the lawsuit posted comments such as, 'They stole our traditional designs and registered them as trademarks, yet claim them as their own rights.', 'It's as if they are blooming wildly before their demise.', 'I will never buy it again. They should be expelled from the Chinese market.', and 'I want to sell off the bag I currently own to a used goods dealer.'

On the other hand, calm remarks were seen, such as 'When the other party is talking about law, what's the point of responding with emotions?' and 'The move to resolve everything through legal channels is proof that LV recognizes our country as a society governed by the rule of law.'

Regarding the impact on purchasing behavior, some users also analyzed that 'those shouting for a boycott online are not LV's customer base to begin with,' and 'ultimately, the wealthy who have been buying will continue to buy, and those who can't afford it are just making noise online.' (Edited/Translated by Kawajiri)