从“一碗小面”到“一朵四叶花”：两起商标案件对当下品牌维权的启示

2026年夏天，中国商标领域出现了两起值得关注的维权案件。有专业人士戏称，2026年或许是中国商标法自1982年通过以来在普法上最为艰难的一年。

In the summer of 2026, two trade mark disputes in China drew significant public attention. Some legal commentators have wryly observed that 2026 may prove to be one of the most challenging years for trade mark law public education since the enactment of China's Trade Mark Law in 1982.

一起是本土餐饮连锁“遇见小面”起诉一家使用近似名称的个体商户面馆“渝见小面”，在被推上热搜后迅速撤诉并道歉。

One case involved a domestic restaurant chain, Yujian Xiaomian (遇见小面 in Chinese characters, meaning “Meeting Little Noodles”), which sued a small individually-owned noodle shop using a similar name, only to withdraw the lawsuit and issue a public apology after the case went viral on social media.

另一起是国际奢侈品牌Louis Vuitton Malletier（LV）诉连锁茶饮品牌“茉莉奶白”使用相似的四叶花图案构成商标侵权，一审获赔人民币1030万元，却引发激烈舆论反弹，迄今未平息。

The other involved an international luxury brand, Louis Vuitton Malletier ("LV"), suing a tea beverage chain, Molly Tea (茉莉奶白), for trade mark infringement over a similar four-petal floral pattern. LV won first-instance damages of RMB 10.3 million, but the ruling triggered fierce public backlash that continues to this day.

此二案件已超出法律技术范畴，演变为公共事件，昭示了更复杂的维权现实及公众解读视角，值得品牌权利人注意。

Both cases have transcended pure legal technicalities and evolved into public incidents, revealing a more complex enforcement landscape that warrants close attention from brand owners.

“遇见小面”是成立于2014年并于港交所上市的连锁品牌，主营重庆小面，全球拥有超过500家门店，曾入选广东省重点商标保护名录。

Yujian Xiaomian (“Meeting Little Noodles”) is a restaurant chain established in 2014 and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Specialising in Chongqing-style noodles, it operates over 500 stores globally and has been included in Guangdong Province's List of Key Protected Trade Marks.

2026年6月初，该品牌起诉河南南阳一家名为“渝见小面”的个体面馆商标侵权并索赔七八千元。双方标识均由四字组成，仅首字不同但发音接近，原告的“遇”意为邂逅，被告的“渝”则指重庆简称。从专业角度看，鉴于二者标识相近且使用在同类服务，起诉侵权在法律上并非全无依据。

In early June 2026, the chain sued a small noodle shop in Nanyang, Henan Province, named "Yujian Xiaomian" (渝见小面) for trade mark infringement, seeking damages of approximately RMB 7,000–8,000. Both signs consist of four Chinese characters, differing only in the first character, though the pronunciation is similar: the plaintiff's “遇" (Yù) means "meet; encounter," while the defendant's "渝" (Yú) refers to Chongqing's abbreviation. From a professional legal perspective, the infringement claim was not without merit, given the similarity of the signs and the identity of the services.

然而案件走向出人意料。被告店主毛女士接到法院传票后在社交媒体哭诉：“我八块钱一碗的面，至少得卖一千碗（才能凑足品牌方索要的赔偿款），一千碗还有成本”，强调其夫妻均为重庆人，使用“渝”是为表明家乡风味，并非模仿，当地亦无原告门店，不会造成混淆。该视频迅速引发关注，舆论几乎一边倒同情被告，指责原告“以强凌弱”。受舆情影响，“遇见小面”股价盘中一度跳水超6%。

However, the case took an unexpected turn. The defendant, Ms. Mao, took to social media to express her distress after receiving the court's summons: "I sell a bowl of noodles for eight yuan. I'd have to sell at least a thousand bowls (just to cover the damages sought by the brand) – and that's before costs." She emphasised that both she and her husband are from Chongqing, and that they used "渝" (Yú) to indicate the authentic regional flavour of their cooking, not to imitate the plaintiff. She also noted that the plaintiff has no stores in her area, so there would be no likelihood of confusion. The video quickly went viral, and public sentiment overwhelmingly favoured the defendant, accusing the plaintiff of "bullying the weak." Amid the public outcry, the plaintiff's share price briefly dropped by more than 6% during trading.

随后，品牌方迅速发布说明，称已沟通撤诉并反思维权流程。2026年6月15日，品牌创始人发布公开信，称起诉是“管理上的重大失误”，宣布将已注册的一个与被告店名相同的商标无偿赠予对方。

The brand quickly issued a statement confirming that it had communicated with the defendant, withdrawn the lawsuit, and was re-evaluating its enforcement process. On 15 June 2026, the founder of the brand issued an open letter, calling the lawsuit a "major management error" and announcing that the company would transfer to the defendant, free of charge, a registered trade mark that was identical to the defendant's shop name.

本案引爆舆论的被告的那句“八块钱一碗的面”精准击中了经济下行期普遍的社会心态——普通人谋生维艰，任何意外打击都关乎生存线，一家上市公司为微不足道的赔偿款去为难一家靠几块钱一碗面维持生计的小店，令公众在感性上难以接受。

The defendant's poignant remark—"eight yuan a bowl of noodles"—precisely struck the prevailing social sentiment during this period of economic downturn: ordinary people are struggling to make a living, and any unexpected blow can be a matter of survival. The stark contrast between a publicly listed company, for the sake of a negligible amount of damages, going after a small shop that depends on selling noodles for a few yuan a bowl to stay afloat was emotionally difficult for the public to accept.

也有评论认为，原告在法律上站得住脚却过早“滑跪”，太仓促了，大可不必。不过，品牌方将舆情风险置于法律胜负之上，也难谓此举不明智。

Some commentators also suggested that the plaintiff, despite having a legally sound case, had "capitulated" too early, perhaps appearing overly hasty. Yet, by prioritising reputational risk over legal victory, the brand's decision cannot be said to be imprudent.

2025年5月，LV以商标侵权为由起诉茉莉奶白。2026年6月29日，一审法院认定茉莉奶白在品牌Logo、门店装潢中使用的四叶花图案侵害了LV七件图形注册商标专用权，判令其停止侵权，赔偿经济损失及维权开支合计1030万元。

In May 2025, LV filed a trade mark infringement lawsuit against Molly Tea. On 29 June 2026, the first-instance court found that Molly Tea's use of a four-petal floral pattern in its brand logo and store decoration infringed seven of LV's registered graphic trade marks. The court ordered Molly Tea to cease infringement and pay RMB 10.3 million in damages and legal costs.

前情是，茉莉奶白自2024年3月起多次申请相关花卉图案商标，均因与在先商标（含LV的）近似而被国家知识产权局驳回，却仍然选择大规模持续使用，一审法院据此认定其主观故意明显。

Crucially, Molly Tea had applied for similar floral pattern trade marks on multiple occasions since 2024, all of which were rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) due to similarity with prior registered marks (including LV’s), yet it continued to use the pattern extensively. The first-instance court therefore found that Molly Tea acted with "significant malicious intent".

LV早在1986年即在中国注册相关图案商标，经长期使用具备较高知名度，且近年已尝试进军餐饮行业，而茉莉奶白使用的图案与LV商标视觉高度趋同，其产品包装也可能具备联想性，该判决被众多专业人士认为于法有据。

LV registered the relevant pattern trade marks in China as early as 1986, and through long-term use, these marks have acquired a high degree of recognition. In recent years, LV has also ventured into the food and beverage sector. The pattern used by Molly Tea is visually highly similar to LV's trade marks, and its product packaging may also give rise to associations with LV. The judgment is therefore considered legally well-founded by many legal professionals.

然而，2026年7月2日判决的部分内容经媒体曝光后，舆论场反应却截然不同，众人哗然。截至7月7日，微博话题“LV起诉茉莉奶白判赔1030万”阅读量达4亿，#LV你身后空无一人#等话题广泛传播，迄今仍在发酵。

However, when the judgment was reported by the media on 2 July 2026, public reaction was starkly different – and overwhelmingly negative. As of 7 July, the Weibo (Chinese X) hashtag "LV sues Molly Tea for 10.3 million" had garnered 400 million views, and hashtags such as "#LV-YouStandAlone" were widely circulated. The controversy continues to unfold.

公众舆论的争议主要集中于三点。

Public criticism centred on three points.

第一，文化符号归属问题。有评论将LV的四叶花图案与中国唐代的宝相花、柿蒂纹等传统装饰纹样对比，质疑一个外国品牌是否可以攫取公共文化领域的元素，再通过商标注册主张其垄断性的排他权利。

First, the question of cultural symbols. Some commentators compared LV's four-petal floral pattern to traditional Chinese decorative motifs such as the baoxianghua (precious floral pattern) and shitiwen (persimmon calyx pattern) from the Tang Dynasty, questioning whether a foreign brand could appropriate elements of the public cultural domain and then assert monopolistic, exclusive rights over them through trademark registration.

上述一观点在商标法上实际站不住脚，因为文化来源并不构成商标侵权的抗辩事由——法院审查的是视觉相似性和混淆可能性，而非设计来源。而茉莉奶白也多次尝试将近似图案注册成自己的商标。此外，LV也不存在垄断权利，其他人对相似花纹的非商标性的使用并不会构成侵权。

The above argument actually lacks merit under trade mark law, as cultural origin does not constitute a defence to trade mark infringement – courts examine visual similarity and likelihood of confusion, not design provenance. In fact, Molly Tea also attempted to register the similar pattern as its own marks. Furthermore, LV does not hold a monopoly, and non-trademark use of similar aptterns by others does not constitute infringement.

第二，强弱对比引发的观感不适。与“小面”案类似，国际奢侈品牌（一只手袋单价上万元）与本土平价茶饮（一杯奶茶十几块钱）之间的量级差异，令公众天然关注弱势一方，形成了“大炮打蚊子”的叙事。

Second, the perceived power imbalance. Similar to the "Little Noodles" case, the disparity between an international luxury brand (with handbags priced at tens of thousands of yuan) and a local affordable tea brand (with drinks priced at around a dozen yuan) naturally inclined public sympathy toward the weaker party, creating a narrative of “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

‍但该叙事在本案中也站不住脚——茉莉奶白并非“弱者”，而是一个门店逾两千家的茶饮品牌，且近期以原告身份在美国纽约针对合作方发起了多起品牌权属诉讼。
‍

However, this narrative is equally untenable in this case—Molly Tea is no "underdog," but a chain tea brand with over 2,000 stores, and it has recently filed multiple brand-ownership lawsuits as the plaintiff against its partners in New York.

第三，LV的维权时机被质疑为“养鱼式维权”。部分舆论认为LV待茉莉奶白有两千余家门店后才起诉，意在获取更高赔偿。

Third, LV's enforcement timing was questioned as "strategic delay." Some commentators suggested that LV deliberately waited until Molly Tea had opened over 2,000 stores before filing suit, in order to maximise damages. 

这一质疑同样依据不充分——1030万元在如今的商标侵权判赔额中并不算高，上亿元的赔偿也已有不少先例。

This criticism is also not well-supported – RMB 10.3 million is not exceptionally high in today's trade mark infringement awards, and there are numerous precedents with awards in the hundreds of millions.

甚至有舆论指责中国法院过于倾向保护国际品牌权利人，并援引LV此前在日本、欧盟维权均未获支持为例——日本专利局曾认定LV相关装饰纹样为传统公用图案从而无权阻止他人使用，欧盟则撤销了其棋盘格商标。不过，该论点也经不起推敲，日本与欧盟的案情均与本案明显不同。

Some public criticism went even further, accusing Chinese courts of being overly protective of international brand owners and citing examples where LV's earlier enforcement efforts in Japan and the EU were unsuccessful – the Japan Patent Office had found LV's relevant decorative pattern to be a traditional public-domain design and thus declined to prevent others from using it, while the EU had revoked its checkerboard pattern trade mark. This argument, however, is also untenable, as the facts of the Japanese and EU cases are quite distinguishable from the present case.

面对舆论，茉莉奶白创始人回应将上诉，并修改了小程序Logo的设计及颜色，同时紧急招聘知识产权法务经理，负责商标全球布局与侵权维权处置。

In response to the public backlash, the founder of Molly Tea stated that the company would appeal and has already modified the colour and design of its WeChat mini-program logo. The company has also urgently recruited an IP legal manager responsible for global trade mark portfolio strategy and infringement enforcement.

LV方面则迄今未公开回应，但也在近期发布了招聘争议解决法务的广告，早几个月前也在招聘企业公关经理（负责危机公关与品牌声誉管理）。

LV, on the other hand, has not publicly responded to the controversy, but has recently posted job openings for a dispute resolution in-house counsel and, a few months ago, was also recruiting a corporate public relations manager (responsible for crisis communications and brand reputation management).

受此案影响，LV针对国家知识产权局裁定提起的几起商标行政诉讼，本属稀松平常的维权程序，近期却引发舆论异样关注，并被负面解读。

Affected by the public backlash in this case, several administrative trade mark lawsuits filed by LV against decisions of the CNIPA — ordinarily routine adjudication proceedings — have recently drawn disproportionate public attention and been interpreted negatively.

这两起案件为在华品牌权利人提供了值得审视的样本。其共性在于：法律上均有依据，却都在舆论场遭遇强力反弹。舆论走向与法律判断不总一致，然而舆论会实质性地影响品牌声誉——而声誉恰是商标价值的核心载体。因此，除法律事实外，市场的感知、文化的记忆、公众对公平的理解、经济下行期的生存焦虑，可能是当下品牌在中国维权时需要尤其留意的变量。

These two cases offer a thought-provoking reference for brand owners enforcing their rights in China. What they share in common is that both had legal merit, yet both encountered fierce public backlash. Public sentiment does not always align with legal reasoning, but it can materially affect brand reputation — and reputation is precisely the core vehicle of trade mark value. Therefore, beyond legal facts, market perceptions, cultural memory, public understanding of fairness, and the survival anxieties of an economic downturn may be the variables that brand owners need to take particular account of when enforcing rights in China today.

具体而言，品牌人需要考虑采取一些措施来管控维权可能导致的潜在风险。

Specifically, brand owners need to consider implementing certain measures to manage the potential risks that enforcement actions may entail.

第一，建立案件筛选与审核机制。涉及小微商户或公共文化元素的案件，需在起诉前评估舆论风险。虽然越来越多品牌人将维权外包给专业机构以求效率，但案件遴选仍需要由品牌方内部来把关，以评估法律之外的因素对品牌声誉的潜在影响。

First, establish a case screening and review mechanism. Cases involving small and micro businesses, or elements of public cultural heritage should be assessed for reputational risk before filing. While more and more brand owners outsource enforcement to professional firms for efficiency, case selection still requires internal oversight to evaluate the potential reputational impact on the brand beyond purely legal considerations.

第二，加快内部决策流程，避免陷入“养鱼式维权”的舆论风险。国际品牌常见的瓶颈是内部决策链过长，而侵权主体扩张迅速，拖延行动不仅影响维权效果，也可能引发“等对方做大了再收割”的负面解读。

Second, expedite internal decision-making processes to avoid the reputational risk of "strategic delay" allegations. A common bottleneck for international brands is lengthy internal decision chains. As infringing entities can expand rapidly, delays not only reduce enforcement effectiveness but may also invite negative interpretations that the brand was "waiting for the target to grow before enforcing its rights."

第三，涉及传统文化元素的诉讼，品牌叙事需前置，在推进法律程序的同时，就准备好清晰的设计溯源材料，以回应公众对文化符号归属的可能关切，并主动引导叙事传播，而不是将叙事权完全让渡给舆论场从而导致被质疑后应对不及。

Third, when a case touches on traditional cultural elements, brand storytelling must be prioritized. While legal proceedings are underway, brands should prepare clear documentation tracing the origins of their designs to address potential public concerns regarding the ownership of cultural symbols, and proactively guide the narrative — rather than ceding control of the narrative entirely to public opinion, which could leave them unable to respond effectively once questioned.

第四，对“法律赢、舆论输”的可能性提前做好预案。在某些敏感案件中，法律利益与舆论支持未必能兼得。品牌权利人需在启动前评估风险、作出选择并规划好应对潜在舆论反响的策略。

Fourth, prepare contingency plans for scenarios where the legal outcome is favourable but public opinion is not. In certain sensitive cases, legal victory and public support may not be simultaneously achievable. Rights holders should assess risks, make choices, and plan strategies to address potential public backlash before taking action.

总之，当下的维权环境已具有现实复杂性，维权关注点已不再只注重于案件事实及法律依据即可。对当下社会情绪保持敏锐感知并基于此采取策略，有时可能比维权行为在法律上是否扎实更能左右舆论场的终局走向，关乎品牌美誉度能否在争议中得以维系，因而已经变得日益重要。

In short, the current environment for enforcement actions has become increasingly complex, and the focus of such efforts can no longer be limited to the facts of a case and the legal basis alone. Maintaining a keen awareness of prevailing social sentiment and formulating strategies based on that can sometimes have a greater impact on the ultimate outcome of public discourse than the legal soundness of the defense itself. This is crucial to maintaining a brand’s reputation amid controversy and has therefore become increasingly important.

---

联系作者 Contact the author

XHuang@marks-clerk.com.cn