Tiffany and Alffany face off in China trademark battle

What happened Tiffany & Co. is locked in an eight-year trademark dispute with Chinese feminine-care brand Alffany (艾芙尼), over whether the latter’s name is too close to “Tiffany.” A related administrative case was heard by the Beijing High People’s Court on July 9, with Tiffany, China’s intellectual property authority and Alffany operator Shanghai Shili Brand Management named as parties. No ruling has been announced. The dispute has produced mixed outcomes. A Class 16 “Alffany” mark covering stationery was invalidated for its similarity to Tiffany’s earlier marks, while a later Class 25 filing for eye masks was allowed. Alffany’s core Class 5 trademark for sanitary products remains active, and its products are still sold online. Alffany says the name is derived from mugwort, or ai, and the Chinese phrase “to care for you” (爱护你). It argues that sanitary pads and fine jewelry occupy different categories and consumer occasions, making confusion unlikely. Tiffany’s case centers on protecting a well-known mark from dilution. Jing Take The legal question is technical, but the public response has been clearer. The dispute quickly gained traction on Weibo. Three related hashtags dominated the conversation: “TiffanySuesAlffany “(Tiffany起诉Alffany) generated 21.3 million views and 986 discussions; “TiffanySuesSanitaryPadBrand” (卖卫生巾的被蒂芙尼告了) prompted 13.6 million views and 1,409 discussions; while “TiffanySeeksToInvalidateAlffanyTrademark” (Tiffany申请撤销艾芙尼商标) has amassed 324,000 views and 547 discussions. In a Yangtze Evening News poll of 31 comments, 38% questioned the lawsuit’s reasonableness, 33% mocked the brand-name comparison and 29% focused on case details. Sentiment was 97% neutral and 3% negative. That does not decide the law, but it shows the reputational risk of aggressive cross-category enforcement for storied brands like Tiffany. Many users treated the distance between sanitary pads and luxury jewelry as obvious, framing the case less as consumer protection than as a global group pressing a smaller domestic operator. For Tiffany, the stakes extend beyond one label. The LVMH-owned jeweler sits within a watches and jewelry division that generated 10.49 billion euros in sales ($11.55 billion) in 2025. Protecting brand equity is central to that model. The dispute follows this year’s high-profile Louis Vuitton-Molly Tea case. Although the legal proceedings differ — civil infringement versus administrative trademark review — both have fueled debate over how far luxury brands should extend trademark protection beyond their core businesses. Yet in China, where well-known marks can receive cross-class protection, enforcement must also survive public scrutiny. The ruling may help define how far that protection can stretch when categories, pricing and purchase contexts are worlds apart. The Jing Take reports on a piece of the leading news and presents our editorial team’s analysis of the key implications for the luxury industry. In the recurring column, we analyze everything from product drops and mergers to heated debate sprouting on Chinese social media.

Tiffany and Alffany face off in China trademark battle

How Bottega Veneta weaved China’s forever it bag

Upgrade to Pro

Sectors

Insights

Company

Tiffany and Alffany face off in China trademark battle

How Bottega Veneta weaved China’s forever it bag