Does Molly Tea's post-lawsuit logo refresh actually work?

Chinese beverage chain Molly Tea has undergone an immediate brand overhaul after being ordered to pay luxury powerhouse Louis Vuitton approximately US$1.5 million (RMB 10.3 million) over trademark infringement.

Don't miss: Molly Tea revamps logo following US$1.5m Louis Vuitton lawsuit

The court ruled that the Shenzhen-based tea chain’s floral emblem was deceptively similar to Louis Vuitton’s iconic registered monogram. The steep financial penalty—consisting of 10 million yuan for economic losses and 300,000 yuan for litigation expenses—has forced Molly Tea into a rapid logo refresh and an urgent hunt for intellectual property (IP) legal specialists.

The discourse surrounding Molly Tea has shifted sharply, moving away from routine food-and-beverage reviews to anchor a much larger global narrative. A staggering 360 million views have focused on issues of corporate law and cultural ownership, with a subsequent 42 million mentions arising from public astonishment over the sudden transformation of New York City outlets into “? Tea” shops during a heated franchise dispute, according to media intelligence firm CARMA. 

Molly Tea's brand reputation currently reflects a stark duality: intensifying legal vulnerability alongside remarkable consumer resilience. Institutional headwinds—namely a ¥10.3 million trademark infringement penalty to Louis Vuitton and abrupt New York storefront rebranding—have driven negative sentiment to 40%, said CARMA.

Yet counterintuitively, these same pressures have mobilised a vocal 25% positive sentiment bloc, with consumers interpreting the luxury giant's legal action as cultural overreach and responding with symbolic purchases. This unusual dynamic suggests that, for now, legal and operational setbacks are paradoxically reinforcing, rather than eroding, Molly Tea's grassroots appeal. 

Industry reactions

While the sudden legal blow presents an operational nightmare, industry experts note that the beverage brand's immediate compliance is a necessary first step.

David Ko, lead advisor and executive coach at Humantyze, noted that the logo change is directionally correct because it actively reduces ongoing confusion and signals legal compliance—particularly since the court ordered the company to cease using the infringing imagery and issue public corrective statements.

However, Ko cautioned that a simple design update will not automatically erase the company's broader public relations risks.

“If the broader identity system still feels derivative, or if the company frames the redesign as a symbolic ‘fight back’, the market may still read it as cosmetic rather than substantive,” Ko explained.

Jacopo Pesavento, CEO of Branding Records, offered a more critical take, calling the revamp weak. The updated logo shifts from black-and-white to a purple-and-gold color scheme and adds depth to the existing four-petal shape—an execution Pesavento argues falls short of a true rebrand.

"That's touch-up work," Pesavento stated bluntly. "It looks like a brand trying to survive a lawsuit, not a brand trying to earn back trust. It keeps the exact silhouette that got them sued in the first place, just dressed differently. That tells me two things: either they don't want to give up the visual equity they built off LV's shape, or they don't think the shape itself was ever really the issue. Both are risky bets. Courts, lawyers, and consumers read 'cosmetic changes' very easily."

On the legal front, Joshua Chu, lawyer, law lecturer and director of Corporate Counsel Hong Kong Association, said Molly Tea's move was the right call, but the sequencing was backwards. "You do not build a brand identity first and conduct IP clearance second. By the time the judgment landed, Molly Tea had already absorbed a US$1.5 million liability, a corrective advertising order across six channels, and lasting reputational damage."

"To put that in perspective, US$1.5 million could fund a well-resourced in-house legal team for several years. Once you are at that stage, a rebrand is obviously necessary, but it is damage control, not a strategy. The more telling detail is that they are only now recruiting a dedicated IP legal manager. That role should have existed before the logo was ever designed," he added.

What more can be done?

In the wake of the ruling, local consumers have rallied around the domestic tea chain. While public sympathy can soften the blow of a corporate crisis, Ko warned that internal PR teams must handle this sentiment with extreme care. Public support should be treated as a signal of brand warmth, not a license to litigate the case's merits in the court of public opinion.

“The right move is to thank consumers for their support, avoid any tone that sounds like contempt for the court, and pivot to a narrative of: ‘We respect the process and are focused on improving our brand going forward,’” Ko advised.

Beyond the revamped logo, there is an opportunity here to bring consumers and brand fans on board for the brand's next chapter. David Ketchum, founder of Current Asia recommended creating a series of AI-generated videos featuring the brand ambassador Molly. "Molly can reach out directly to consumers via social media (Xiaohongshu, Douyin and Weibo) and invite them to submit their own ideas for a new logo. Her tone should be light and upbeat, with a sense of humor, winking knowingly at customers about the reason for needing to change the logo, since everyone already knows the story."

Pesavento agreed that the ultimate key to navigating this crisis is a genuine visual reset. "They need a genuinely different visual language built from the ground up, with proper legal clearance before it ever touches a store sign again. And they need to stop calling this an 'operational adjustment' in customer service scripts. Everyone already knows why the logo changed. Pretending otherwise just adds a trust problem on top of a legal one."

In terms of how internal brand and legal teams can do better moving forward, Chu emphasised that well-known trademarks carry long arms that easily reach across different industries and product classes. Operating strictly in the F&B sector does not insulate a business from a luxury fashion house's registrations—especially in an era where cross-sector brand collaborations have made consumer confusion more plausible than ever.

"Brands that do not invest in in-house counsel, or that treat legal as a back-office function rather than embedding it at the product and brand development stage, consistently find themselves paying far more in enforcement costs and remediation than they would ever have spent on preventive advice," Chu concluded. "The in-house team should be in the room when the logo is being designed, not brought in to manage the fallout after a writ is served."

Related articles:

Molly Tea revamps logo following US$1.5m Louis Vuitton lawsuit
Gucci loses trademark lawsuit to Japanese t-shirt firm