A:Do you adore chocolate cake?
B:No. (But he likes it)
A:Oh, B hates chocolate cake!
Sounds like false dichotomy to me. Just because B doesn't adore cake doesn't mean that the only other possibility is that he hates it.
I agree with Roger's answer. This is a false dichotomy; since B doesn't "adore" chocolate cake, B must "hate" chocolate cake.
In truth, B may be "indifferent" to chocolate cake, and can eat it or leave it; B may also "like" chocolate cake, but have food allergies that rule out chocolate cake, and thus would have more of a pleasure+pain reaction, of liking the chocolate cake, but hating the subsequent resulting effects of hives, sweats, etc. that occur when B actually eats chocolate cake.
It's a false dichotomy partly because A's intent seems to be to "label" B with an either-or label that falsely represents B's actual position. A also seems to be very enthusiastic about labeling B in this way, and seems to be doing the labeling for "public consumption", announcing it to the world, e.g., to embarrass B. Note that A doesn't say "YOU hate chocolate cake" back to B, but is saying "B HATES chocolate cake" for the benefit of other parties who are present. It comes across a purposeful, calculated statement by A to embarrass B, and not an innocent error of logic.
Some elements of a "straw man" are also present, in that A misrepresents B's position on the issue of chocolate cake. A does not go any further in this limited example, such as attacking B for hating chocolate cake, so I can't label it as a straw man.
I don't think you can call it a logical fallacy.
Logic deals mainly with assertions and not with intentions (in the sense of "mental acts").
So we cannot "extract" a contradiction from B's answer, that sounds like "He is saying that 'he don't like cakes' but in fact he likes them".