What do you think of a comment on the Weibo platform supporting Molly Tea, a China bubble tea firm, because "they're just taking advantage of the fact that our ancestors didn't file for patents"?

 The comment — "They're just taking advantage of the fact that our ancestors didn't file for patents" — is best understood as a rhetorical expression of frustration rather than a legally accurate statement.

Here's why:

                           Check please details  Information 

• It appeals to cultural identity. The commenter is arguing that motifs associated with traditional Chinese culture should not become the exclusive commercial property of a modern company simply because that company registered them first. This reflects a broader sentiment that cultural heritage belongs to everyone.

• It conflates patents with trademarks. The dispute involving Molly Tea and Louis Vuitton is about trademark law, not patents. Patents protect inventions, while trademarks protect brand identifiers such as logos. A traditional artistic motif may be part of the public domain, but a specific stylized logo used to identify a brand can still receive trademark protection. (China Daily)

• Trademark law focuses on consumer confusion. Even if a design draws inspiration from ancient art, a court may still find infringement if the commercial logo is sufficiently similar to an earlier registered trademark and is likely to confuse consumers or take advantage of an established brand's reputation. In the recent first-instance ruling, the court concluded that Molly Tea's logo infringed several of Louis Vuitton's registered floral trademarks, and Molly Tea has said it intends to appeal. (South China Morning Post)

• The cultural question is separate from the legal question. It's reasonable to debate whether global brands should be able to obtain exclusive trademark rights over designs inspired by traditional cultural elements. Many legal scholars and members of the public have raised that issue. But that debate does not automatically determine the outcome of a trademark infringement case, which is decided under existing trademark law. (China Daily)

So the comment expresses a recognizable viewpoint:

"Traditional Chinese patterns existed long before modern intellectual property systems, so it feels unfair for others to claim exclusive rights over similar imagery."

As an expression of cultural sentiment, that's understandable. As a legal explanation of the case, however, it is oversimplified because:

1. the issue is trademarks rather than patents,

2. trademark protection can apply even when a design is inspired by public-domain cultural motifs, and

3. courts evaluate the specific commercial use and likelihood of consumer confusion, not merely the historical origin of the underlying artistic idea.