On July 8, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases of Thailand handed down a verdict in open court, upholding all rulings of the first instance in Luckin Coffee’s trademark infringement litigation against the Thai counterfeit "Luckin". The defendant, Thailand Royal 50R Group, was ordered to pay over 95 million Thai Baht (approximately 3 million US dollars / 19.18 million RMB) in compensation to Luckin, setting a new record for the highest damages awarded in an intellectual property case in Thailand’s judicial history.
More landmarkly, this is the first precedent in Thailand’s legal system that officially recognizes the legal concept of malicious trademark squatting. In the second instance of the first round of litigation in 2023, Luckin lost the case, and the trademark squatter countersued Luckin for 10 billion THB (roughly 2 billion RMB). After five years of cross-border trademark litigation, Luckin achieved a complete reversal. This case stands as a textbook example of Chinese brands protecting intellectual property overseas.
Case Origin: Copycat Brands Launched Before the Genuine Brand Entered the Market
In 2021, Luckin Coffee planned to enter the Thai market. Right before its market launch, the brand discovered multiple local entities had pre-registered a full set of trademarks covering the English logo "LUCKIN COFFEE", Chinese characters "瑞幸咖啡" and the deer head graphic, alongside similar enterprise names and official seals.
The squatter behind all registrations was Thailand Royal 50R Group. The company filed applications for relevant trademarks starting in 2018, and successfully registered Thai "Lucky Coffee" trademarks, deer head graphic trademarks, "luckin coffee" and other marks between 2020 and 2021.
In early 2022, a Chinese tourist spotted coffee shops in Thailand highly similar to domestic Luckin stores: they adopted the signature blue-and-white color scheme and deer head logo, with only the deer head flipped left (the authentic Luckin logo faces right), plus a line of Thai text underneath, making it nearly indistinguishable to consumers. In August the same year, Luckin officially issued a statement: "No authentic Luckin Coffee stores operate in Thailand; all local shops bearing similar branding are counterfeit." Luckin then formally initiated legal proceedings to safeguard its rights.
First Litigation Setback: Luckin Loses Appeal, Then Faces a ¥2 Billion Counterclaim
In 2022, Luckin filed a lawsuit with Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. The first-instance court ruled in Luckin’s favor, confirming the defendant’s infringement and ordering the cancellation of the disputed trademarks. The defendant immediately filed an appeal.
At the end of 2023, the appellate court reversed the judgment and ruled against Luckin. Per the verdict presented by the defendant’s management, the court held that Luckin did not own the trademark rights to "Luckin Coffee" and thus lacked standing to file the claim. What followed was even more shocking: Thailand Royal 50R Group launched a counterclaim against Luckin, demanding 10 billion THB (around 2 billion RMB) in economic losses. Its grounds stated that Luckin repeatedly forced the group to stop trademark use and seized its assets during litigation, resulting in severe financial losses. Luckin only posted an eight-word response plus a Thai sentence on its official Weibo account: "The matter awaits verification. (I am stunned despite my limited understanding.)"
Refiled Lawsuit & First-Instance Reversal: Court Confirms Malicious Squatting
Faced with the defeat and counterclaim, Luckin Coffee swiftly adjusted its legal strategy. In March 2024, the brand switched legal representatives and retained Tilleke & Gibbins, Thailand’s largest law firm, to refile the litigation.
According to the firm, previous judgments failed to resolve the core issue of legitimate trademark ownership, and the court did not hear the substantive question of which party held superior trademark rights, disrupting Luckin’s business expansion plans in Thailand. The legal team crafted a litigation strategy addressing all substantive disputes and pushed the case back to trial.
On February 6, 2025, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court of Thailand issued a first-instance judgment fully supporting all of Luckin’s claims.
The court confirmed Luckin held prior and superior rights to the disputed trademarks, and found the defendant engaged in malicious trademark squatting. The court issued the following orders: cancel all Luckin-related trademarks registered by the defendant; permanently ban the defendant from using all Luckin branding including "LUCKIN COFFEE", Chinese "瑞幸咖啡" and the deer head graphic; pay a fixed compensation of 10 million THB, plus continuous infringement damages of 100,000 THB per day starting from the lawsuit filing date (March 4, 2024). The court also ordered the defendant to amend its enterprise name and remove all references to "Luckin Coffee".
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendant filed another appeal.
Final Second-Instance Judgment: Original Ruling Fully Upheld
On July 8, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases delivered an open-court verdict, dismissing the defendant’s appeal and fully affirming the first-instance judgment. The appellate court reached identical findings as the lower court: the defendant committed malicious trademark squatting and infringement, and Luckin owned prior and superior rights to the contested marks.
Regarding compensation, the court upheld the fixed damages of 10 million THB plus daily continuous infringement compensation of 100,000 THB from March 4, 2024 until cessation of infringement. As of the judgment date, the defendant’s continuous infringement spanned 856 days, with continuous damages alone exceeding 85 million THB. Total compensation surpassed 95 million THB (3 million US dollars / 19.18 million RMB), breaking Thailand’s record for intellectual property case damages.
The judgment further mandated the defendant cancel all registered Luckin trademarks; permanently prohibit the use of "LUCKIN COFFEE", Chinese "瑞幸咖啡" and deer head logos in its coffee business; and revise its enterprise name and corporate seal.
Case Significance & Ripple Effects
As interpreted by legal counsel Tilleke & Gibbins, this case set three groundbreaking precedents in Thailand’s judicial history: it is the first time a Thai court formally recognized the legal principle of malicious trademark squatting; the first application of the prior rights rule to cancel maliciously registered trademarks; and it set the highest damages award ever recorded for an IP dispute in Thailand.
Despite a complete judicial victory, Luckin paid a heavy price. Prolonged trademark disputes have prevented Luckin from opening physical stores in Thailand, causing the brand to miss the prime window for growth in Thailand’s coffee market. Meanwhile, Chinese beverage peers including Mixue, Bashang Tea, NAYUKI and Cotti Coffee have already established operations across Thailand. On the defendant’s side, Thailand Royal 50R Group has shrunk its operating stores from roughly 10 outlets in 2023 to just one, and its social media accounts have been deactivated or hidden from public view.
Conclusion
Luckin’s four-year rights protection journey swung from an appeal defeat and a 2-billion-RMB counterclaim filed by the trademark squatter, to winning Thailand’s record-high IP compensation. This case not only creates a successful model for Chinese brands safeguarding intellectual property overseas, but also proves Chinese enterprises can defend their brand voice in global markets by leveraging local laws and international rules.
As Luckin stated in its victory announcement: "This landmark judgment is the first precedent in Thailand’s judicial system to formally acknowledge the concept of malicious trademark squatting. It will serve as vital judicial reference for international brands facing trademark squatting in Thailand, and embolden Chinese brands to protect their rights under global rules." In the global commercial arena, legal action is not a cost, but an investment; regulatory rules are not restraints, but moats to defend brand value.
