Luckin v. Lucky Cat: Punitive Damages Awarded – RMB 5 Million Pay-Out
In the latest batch of punitive-damages cases released by the Guangdong Provincial High People’s Court, a dispute filed by Luckin Coffee (China) Co., Ltd. against Re-Mou Co. in the Futian District People’s Court of Shenzhen has grabbed headlines.
“Free-riding” sparks litigation
Founded in 2018, Luckin Coffee has grown into China’s first coffee chain to exceed 10 000 outlets (as of June 2023). The company is the registered owner of multiple word-and-device marks—including “LUCKIN COFFEE & device,” “瑞幸咖啡” and “luckin coffee 瑞幸 coffee”—all covering Class 43 (café services).
Defendant Re-Mou Co. was incorporated in December 2020 and operates the “Lucky Cat Coffee” brand through several dozen franchise stores. In 2022 it secured registration for the word mark “幸猫咖啡.”
Luckin discovered that Re-Mou’s marketing materials and store design copied its identity almost wholesale: storefront signs, paper cups, takeaway bags, avatars on delivery apps and promotional images all prominently featured “LUCKY CAT COFFEE” and a blue-white circular badge with an animal silhouette—strikingly similar to Luckin’s own branding. Luckin sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition, demanding an immediate stop, removal of adverse effects and RMB 5 million in damages, expressly invoking punitive damages.
Re-Mou’s defences
-
It holds valid registrations for “幸猫咖啡” in Classes 43 and 35 and has pending device marks—hence no wilful infringement.
-
The marks are plainly different: “瑞幸” vs. “幸猫”; “luckin” vs. “LUCK CAT” (case and meaning); the silhouettes differ (deer vs. cat). No likelihood of confusion.
-
Blue-white colour schemes are generic in the coffee sector.
Court findings
After side-by-side comparison, the Futian court held:
-
Re-Mou’s “LUCKY CAT COFFEE 幸猫咖啡” and associated logos are similar to Luckin’s registered marks.
-
Given Luckin’s high brand recognition, and the almost identical placement and sizing of the marks on storefronts, cups, uniforms, etc., the risk of consumer confusion is significant.
-
Re-Mou acted with clear malice and the infringement was serious.
Accordingly, the court applied punitive damages. Relying on Luckin’s evidence of Re-Mou’s franchise-fee income (at least RMB 1.72 million), it doubled the infringer’s gains to RMB 3.44 million and rounded up to RMB 5 million to cover economic loss and reasonable enforcement costs. Re-Mou must immediately cease the infringing acts.
The judgment is now final.
Application of punitive damages
Luckin explicitly requested punitive damages; the Futian court granted the full RMB 5 million claim.
Under Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in IP Civil Cases, punitive damages require both subjective malice and serious circumstances. The court found both elements satisfied, applied a 2× multiplier to the calculated illicit profit and endorsed Luckin’s requested amount.
end
