I. Core Facts: Five-Year Dispute Ends with Final Victory
On July 27, 2026, Luckin Coffee officially announced via its official channels that it had secured a final favorable ruling in its trademark infringement lawsuit in Thailand.
On July 8, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases of Thailand handed down its second-instance judgment, fully upholding the first-instance verdict issued by the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court). The court confirmed that the defendant, Thailand Royal 50R Group, had committed malicious trademark squatting and trademark infringement.
II. Case Timeline: From Copycat Stores to a ¥2 Billion Counterclaim
The cross-border trademark dispute traces back to 2018. That year, Thailand Royal 50R Group filed applications to register the English mark "LUCKIN COFFEE", Chinese characters "瑞幸咖啡" and the deer-head graphic trademark in Thailand, with all registrations granted in 2020.
Subsequently, the group opened numerous counterfeit stores across Bangkok, Pattaya and other regions. The store decor, product packaging and logo design bore striking similarities to authentic Luckin outlets, with only minor alterations: the deer head graphic was flipped horizontally and Thai text was added underneath. Mass consumers were misled into believing Luckin had officially entered Thailand.
In October 2021, Luckin filed its first lawsuit with the Thai IP&IT Court. In November 2022, the first-instance court ruled in Luckin’s favor, confirming infringement and ordering cancellation of the defendant’s registered trademarks.
The defendant filed an appeal, and in 2023 the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases reversed the judgment on the grounds that Luckin lacked proper litigation standing at the time of filing.
At that time, the "Luckin" trademark was legally owned by Beijing Ruiji Coffee Technology Co., Ltd. Although Luckin Coffee (China) had signed a trademark transfer agreement, the official transfer publication took place in November 2021 — after the October 2021 lawsuit filing date. The Thai court thus held Luckin had no right to bring the claim.
More surprisingly, after losing the appeal, the defendant filed a counterclaim against Luckin demanding 10 billion Thai Baht (approximately RMB 2 billion), which the court accepted for trial. Overnight, Luckin shifted from the rights holder to the party facing massive compensation claims and fell into a passive position.
III. Reversal & Victory: Well-Known Trademark Protection and Record-High Damages
Faced with the setback, Luckin adjusted its litigation strategy and refiled a new lawsuit with the IP&IT Court in March 2024.
This time, Luckin invoked provisions on well-known trademark protection under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, asserting prior and superior rights to the disputed trademarks. It submitted extensive evidence including global store operation data and trademark registration records across multiple countries to prove the defendant’s malicious mass trademark squatting.
In February 2025, the IP&IT Court ruled the two lawsuits involved different subject matters and did not constitute repetitive litigation, and issued a judgment in Luckin’s favor. The defendant appealed once more, until the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases delivered its verdict on July 8, 2026, affirming the lower court ruling.
IV. Three Judicial Firsts: Landmark Precedents in Thailand
The final judgment set out the compensation formula: a base damage award of 10 million THB, plus continuous damages of 100,000 THB per day from March 4, 2024 (the refiling date) until the cessation of infringing acts.
As of the judgment date on July 8, 2026, the defendant’s continuous infringement spanned 856 days. Total compensation exceeded 95 million THB (around RMB 19.18 million), setting a new all-time high for damages awarded in intellectual property cases in Thailand.
This case established three unprecedented judicial precedents in Thailand:
-
For the first time, a Thai court formally recognized the legal concept of "malicious trademark squatting", breaking from the long-standing rigid "first-to-file" registration principle;
-
It marked the first application of the prior superior rights doctrine to invalidate maliciously registered trademarks;
-
It recorded the highest compensation amount ever granted in a Thai IP dispute.
V. Key Case Takeaways
-
Trademark rights are territorial — register trademarks before overseas market expansion
Trademarks registered in China do not automatically receive protection in Thailand. Before entering any target overseas market, enterprises should complete international trademark registration covering core product classes to avoid the passive situation of launching business without prior trademark layout.
-
Leverage international treaties; well-known trademarks transcend territorial limits
Although Luckin’s Thai trademark filings lagged behind the squatter, it secured court support by claiming well-known trademark protection under the Paris Convention. Chinese brands involved in overseas IP disputes should fully utilize international conventions and engage local professional legal teams.
-
Build routine trademark monitoring and early warning systems
File trademark opposition or invalidation procedures promptly once squatting is detected to prevent infringement from scaling up. Luckin’s five-year, two-round litigation clearly demonstrates that proactive pre-emptive trademark planning is far more cost-effective than remedial legal action after infringement occurs.
