When you search for "Pengchu" on a food delivery platform late at night, have you ever noticed that a store with low ratings and comments like "the taste is wrong" is actually a counterfeit? In January 2026, the People's Court of Jiang'an District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province concluded a trademark infringement case. Li, Zhang and others were ordered to pay more than 160,000 yuan in punitive damages for opening counterfeit takeaway stores using the well-known trademark "Pengchu".
1. Case Background: Well-Known Trademark with Over 500 Stores Targeted by "Ghost Takeaways"
Peng is the owner of the exclusive right to use the "Pengchu" series of trademarks, and has granted an exclusive license to a catering company to use the mark. The brand has more than 500 stores nationwide, and the "Pengchu" trademark has been recognized as a well-known trademark.
In July 2023, Peng and the licensed company found that a Wuhan restaurant was using the "Pengchu" trademark on food delivery platforms. In May 2024, the plaintiff sued the People's Court of Jiang'an District, Wuhan City, claiming 1 million yuan in compensation. During the trial, the plaintiff applied to obtain the bank records of the takeaway store, and found that the bound account belonged to Li and Zhao, with Zhang as another actual operator. The court added the three as co-defendants accordingly. As the infringing store was taken down in late 2024, the plaintiff withdrew its claim for cessation of infringement.
2. Infringement: Collusion Through License Lending and "Ghost Operation"
The People's Court of Jiang'an District, Wuhan City found that the restaurant was established in 2021. In March 2023, Li and Zhang rented the restaurant's premises and used its business license and permits to operate takeaway services without providing dine-in options.
The infringement was conspicuous: the pure takeaway model evaded offline supervision; the trademark was fully used on the store name, avatar and merchant photos; the operating subjects changed frequently (Zhao replaced Li after his withdrawal, and the store renamed many times but kept using the infringing trademark); Li used the "Pengchu" trademark on multiple takeaway stores on a large scale. Some consumers complained about the poor taste and poor hygiene of the food, damaging the reputation of the "Pengchu" brand.
3. Judgment: Legal Logic of Punitive Damages
The court applied punitive damages for the following reasons: the defendants had obvious subjective malice— as industry operators, Li and others continued to use the infringing mark after renaming the stores repeatedly, showing repeated and continuous infringement; the circumstances were serious— poor food quality and hygiene damaged the trademark reputation; the infringement harmed public interests by affecting food safety and consumers' legitimate rights and interests.
Based on the revenue details from the food delivery platform, the court calculated the infringing profits at the corresponding profit margin as the compensation base, and finally ordered Zhang to pay more than 160,000 yuan. The restaurant committed contributory infringement by lending its business license and shall bear joint and several liability; Li and Zhao shall be jointly and severally liable for the infringement during their respective operating periods. Neither party appealed after the judgment, and the ruling has taken effect.
4. Warning: Liability of License Lenders and Platforms
The court ruled that the restaurant's act of lending its business license constituted contributory infringement and shall bear joint and several liability. The judgment warns the market that lending business certificates is not a "risk-free business". Those who allow others to use their certificates without performing review obligations shall be held jointly liable with the actual operators. The judge also pointed out: "Online platforms are not beyond the law, and shall bear corresponding legal liabilities for infringements."
The anonymity and cross-regional nature of the takeaway economy make "brand free-riding" more concealed. Infringers often exploit platform review loopholes to gain traffic benefits by stealing trademarks, forging certificates and renaming stores frequently, while shifting food safety risks and brand reputation losses to consumers and legitimate merchants.
Conclusion
It took nearly three years from the start of infringement by Li and others in March 2023 to the punitive damages judgment issued by the court in January 2026. Although 160,000 yuan is lower than the claimed 1 million yuan, the application of punitive damages sends a clear signal: malicious free-riding on well-known trademarks will come at a heavy cost. A trademark is not only a product logo, but also a carrier of business reputation— only by respecting prior achievements can operators achieve sustainable development in market competition.
