Tiffany vs. Alffany: Key takeaways
- Tiffany is challenging Alffany trademarks over similarities in their English and Chinese names
- Two appeals are before Beijing’s High People’s Court, but no compensation is being sought
- Alongside Louis Vuitton’s Molly Tea case, the dispute could make LVMH appear overaggressive in defending its trademarks
Tiffany (蒂芙尼) and Alffany (艾芙尼) occupy entirely different worlds. One sells jewellery, the other, sanitary pads. But put products aside and the distance starts to retreat. Alffany shares its final five letters with Tiffany, the brands’ Chinese names share two of three Chinese characters, and the fonts are rather similar.
Those details now sit at the centre of – yes, another – China trademark battle, and just weeks after Louis Vuitton secured an RMB 10.3 million (US$1.5 million) victory over tea chain Molly Tea’s four-petal logo. That makes it twice this summer that an LVMH-owned house has been involved in Chinese legal proceedings. The latest case is now before the Beijing High People’s Court. Let’s wheel it back.
China’s trademark regulator decided in 2025 that three Alffany trademarks should be cancelled following challenges from Tiffany. Alffany asked the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to reverse that decision.
The court refused in two cases, so Alffany has appealed to the Beijing High People’s Court. Those appeals remain undecided, while the third case is still before the lower court. The proceedings will determine whether Alffany can keep the disputed trademarks. As of yet, no compensation is being sought.
That makes it twice this summer that an LVMH-owned house has been involved in Chinese legal proceedings
The lower court found that Alffany’s names resembled Tiffany’s well-known marks. Its blue packaging strengthened the perceived connection and could weaken Tiffany’s distinctiveness.
Chinese law allows famous brands to challenge similar marks across unrelated product categories when the association may damage them. Alffany’s defence is essentially the common sense take: that nobody shopping for sanitary pads would mistake them for jewellery.
The Dao view: LVMH faces a reputational risk
These disputes have about as much in common as the products these brands offer, except for one big factor. They’re both LVMH brands. That poses a risk for the brand. Online reactions in both trademark disputes have framed the narrative as a global luxury name aggressively defending its territory at domestic brands’ expense. Online narratives should be taken with a pinch of salt but not disregarded. Foreign brands have fallen fowl of nationalistic consumer trends in China before.
