Luckins Thailand Trademark Case: An Analysis Through the Lens of Chinas New Trademark Law
On July 27, 2026, Luckin Coffee posted a brief yet powerful message on Weibo: "We won!" On July 8, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases of Thailand delivered its final judgment, ruling that Thailand Royal 50R Group had committed malicious trademark squatting and operated counterfeit stores constituting infringement. The defendant was ordered to cancel its registered Luckin trademarks, permanently cease use of all related marks, change its corporate name, and pay total compensation exceeding 95 million Thai Baht (approximately RMB 19.18 million).
This victory was hard-won — from the first lawsuit in 2021 to the final ruling, the battle lasted a full five years.
Case Background: A Five-Year Saga Sparked by "Fake Luckin"
The story dates back to 2018. Before Luckin Coffee entered the Thai market, Thailand Royal 50R Group preemptively filed applications for the "LUCKIN COFFEE", "瑞幸咖啡" and deer-head graphic trademarks, which were granted in 2020. The group subsequently opened multiple coffee stores across Thailand, with store decor, product packaging and logo design (only the deer head was flipped and Thai text was added) highly identical to authentic Luckin outlets.
In early 2022, a Chinese tourist discovered these "copycat Luckin" stores while traveling in Thailand and exposed them online. Luckin immediately issued a statement: "Too fake! Luckin Coffee has not opened any stores in Thailand."
In October 2021, Luckin formally filed a lawsuit in Thailand. It won the first instance in 2022, but in 2023 the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Luckin lacked sufficient litigation standing at the time of filing. More surprisingly, the defendant countersued Luckin for 10 billion Thai Baht (approximately RMB 2 billion), leaving the rights protection effort at an impasse.
Faced with this setback, Luckin swiftly adjusted its strategy and refiled the lawsuit in March 2024. It won the first instance again in February 2025, and the defendant appealed once more. Finally, on July 8, 2026, the appellate court pronounced the verdict in open court, fully upholding the original judgment.
Three New Records: A Landmark Judgment
This ruling set three judicial precedents in Thailand: first, a Thai court formally recognized the legal principle of "malicious trademark squatting" for the first time, breaking through the long-entrenched "first-to-file" doctrine; second, the "prior rights rule" was applied for the first time to cancel maliciously registered trademarks; third, it set the record for the highest compensation amount in an intellectual property case in Thailand.
Regarding compensation, the court ordered the defendant to pay 10 million Thai Baht in base damages, plus continuing damages calculated at 100,000 Thai Baht per day from the date of filing (March 4, 2024). As of the final judgment, the continuous infringement had spanned 856 days, with continuing damages alone exceeding 85 million Thai Baht.
What does this mean? The "daily accrual damages" mechanism fundamentally dismantles the infringer's calculus of "dragging out time and wearing down costs" — the longer they delay, the more they pay.
This ruling shattered the long-standing gray-market logic in Southeast Asia that "squatting equals legality." As Luckin stated in its announcement, this is "the first representative precedent in Thailand's judicial history to formally recognize the concept of malicious trademark squatting, and its far-reaching significance will provide important judicial reference for international brands dealing with trademark squatting in Thailand."
Why Did Luckin Win? Three Key Takeaways
Reviewing Luckin's rights protection journey, three points are particularly worthy of reference for enterprises going global:
First, solidify the rights foundation. Luckin did not act at the eleventh hour. It had long completed international trademark registration 布局 in key markets through the WIPO Madrid System and established a routine overseas trademark monitoring and early-warning mechanism. When counterfeiting was discovered, it already held complete proof of rights.
Second, break through with strategy. After the first defeat, Luckin quickly adjusted its approach, invoking the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property to claim well-known trademark protection. It submitted evidence including global store data and multi-country registration records, shifting the court's focus from "procedural standing" to "substantive malice." Meanwhile, Luckin submitted evidence that the defendant had long and systematically squatted trademarks of Chinese brands including "Wanglaoji", "Chow Tai Fook" and "Mixue", proving its "obvious subjective malice."
Third, leverage institutional innovation. The "daily accrual damages" mechanism adopted by the Thai court prevents infringers from benefiting by delaying litigation. This institutional design also offers inspiration for improving China's domestic intellectual property damages system.
New Trademark Law Takes Effect: Well-Known Marks Gain a "Confirmation" Mechanism
In the same month as Luckin's victory, on June 26, 2026, the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress deliberated and adopted the newly revised Trademark Law — the first comprehensive revision since the law took effect in 1983.
The change most relevant to enterprises going global is this: the expression of "determination" (认定) of trademark well-known status has been revised to "confirmation" (确认), curbing the excessive pursuit of well-known mark determination. For the first time, the law establishes a system under which the State Council's trademark authority may, upon a party's request, confirm a trademark's well-known status within China, assisting in the examination of overseas trademark cases.
In short, the new law will provide domestic well-known trademark "confirmation" documents for enterprises' overseas rights protection, helping them more effectively prove their trademark's reputation and influence in foreign litigation.
Three "Moats" for Enterprises Going Global
The most direct warning from the Luckin case to all enterprises going global: trademark rights are strictly territorial — domestic registration does not equal overseas protection. Countries such as Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia follow the "first-to-file" principle, where whoever registers first owns the rights.
Based on this case, enterprises going global should build three "moats":
First, "trademarks before business." Before entering a target market, complete core trademark registration locally 6 to 12 months in advance, simultaneously registering core product categories and related defensive categories.
Second, make good use of the international registration system. Conduct multi-country 布局 through the Madrid System for International Registration of Marks, reducing costs by 40% to 60% compared with single-country registration.
Third, establish a monitoring and early-warning mechanism. Monitor trademark application dynamics in target markets simultaneously, and file oppositions promptly during the publication period of squatted trademarks — far more cost-effective and efficient than initiating litigation after the fact.
As the Luckin case proves: in the global commercial arena, law is not a cost but an investment; rules are not constraints but moats. Chinese brands going global cannot always be the "late plaintiff."
