Louis Vuitton's trademark dispute with Chinese tea chain Molly Tea is unfolding alongside a separate legal battle in New York over the ownership of the tea company's brand in the US. A federal judge has rejected a second application by Shenzhen Molly Tea and its co-plaintiffs for preliminary relief involving three New York stores, while leaving an earlier injunction restricting the use of the MOLLY TEA trademarks in place. The ruling leaves the wider dispute over the company's American business unresolved.
The US lawsuit, filed in May 2026, pits Shenzhen Molly Tea Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd. against its New York business partners in a dispute involving licensing agreements, trademark rights and control of store operations.
Although the proceedings are separate from Louis Vuitton's trademark case in China, both involve legal questions surrounding the protection and use of the Molly Tea brand.
Molly Tea's US Trademark Dispute
Shenzhen Molly Tea accused its licensee, MHL NY LLC, of breaching a 2023 licensing agreement covering three New York City stores, operating unauthorised locations and infringing its trademarks. The Chinese company holds two US federal registrations for MOLLY TEA and claims rights to the name and associated trade dress, including elements of its storefronts, interiors and employee uniforms.
MHL NY disputes Shenzhen Molly Tea's ownership of the marks, arguing that Molly Tea NYC Inc., the operator of the original Flushing store, was the first to use the brand in the US. The disagreement raises a central question: whether the Chinese company can establish its claimed rights in the American market despite the challenge to its ownership from its local business partners.
In August 2026, US District Judge John P. Cronan refused to reconsider an earlier preliminary injunction restricting MHL NY's use of the MOLLY TEA marks. The court found that the defendants had not raised their ownership challenge during the original injunction proceedings, although the underlying question of trademark ownership remains unresolved.
Under US trademark law, federal registration provides important evidence of a claimant's rights, but registration does not necessarily resolve every dispute over priority of use or ownership. The Lanham Act's related-company doctrine can allow one company's use of a mark to benefit another where the required control over the nature and quality of the relevant goods or services exists. Whether that principle establishes Shenzhen Molly Tea's claimed ownership in this dispute has not been finally determined.
Judge Rejects Second Injunction Bid
In an order dated 9 October, 2026, Judge Cronan rejected a second preliminary injunction application brought by Shenzhen Molly Tea and its fellow plaintiffs, including Mollytea Shops LLC and Molly Tea Holding Inc., which are involved in the parties' US business arrangements. The application sought relief concerning the three New York locations, including a request by Mollytea Shops to dissolve the entities operating the stores and take over their operations.
The plaintiffs alleged that MHL NY had breached shareholder agreements by operating unauthorised stores, disclosing confidential information and trade secrets, and engaging in competing business activities.
They argued that the alleged breaches justified the requested intervention, but the court found that they had not established a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to warrant the preliminary relief sought.
The ruling does not determine final liability, settle the parties' competing trademark ownership claims or resolve the wider contractual dispute. The amended preliminary injunction issued on 23 June, 2026, remains in force, leaving MHL NY subject to restrictions on its use of the MOLLY TEA marks while the litigation continues.
The New York proceedings are separate from Louis Vuitton's trademark dispute with Molly Tea in China. That case concerns allegations involving Louis Vuitton's protected marks and a floral logo, rather than the contractual and ownership questions at the centre of the US litigation. The two cases therefore involve distinct legal issues and should not be treated as determining the outcome of one another.
For Molly Tea, the US case highlights the potential complications of expanding an international brand through licensing arrangements and local business partnerships. Its eventual outcome will depend on the evidence, the parties' agreements and the court's assessment of the competing claims and other legal issues surrounding the American business.
