“Chagee” versus “Chaji Huiwu”

In Laibin, Guangxi, a highly‑copied milk‑tea shop opened merely 20 meters away from an authorized store of well‑known tea‑drink brand Chagee. It comprehensively imitated the original store’s signboard, interior decoration and star‑product names. The Nanning Intellectual Property Tribunal ruled that the defendant committed trademark infringement and unfair competition, ordering compensation of RMB 350 000.

This case drew widespread attention for its blatant infringing conduct and demonstrative judgment.

A “twin‑store” only 20 meters away

Since August 2025, consumers in Laibin, Guangxi noticed that near an authorized Chagee outlet, a milk‑tea shop named “Chaji Huiwu” opened just 20 meters away. The two stores were close in physical distance and looked almost identical.

The shop sign was highly similar: both adopted female‑portrait core visual element with orange background, four‑character shop names containing the Chinese characters “Cha Ji”, creating overall visual resemblance to Chagee registered trademarks.

Interior decoration was copied wholesale: store‑style, staff uniforms and tableware were comprehensively imitated from Chagee.

Even product names were taken directly: the counterfeit shop sold the signature drink “Boya Jue Xian” both in‑store and via online food‑delivery platforms.

Such close imitation confused many consumers. Netizens left ironic comments on online shops: “Would employees feel awkward working here? The imitation is so blatant.”

After discovering the infringement, Chagee’s right‑holder, a Beijing‑based catering‑management company, sued a Guangxi catering company before the Nanning Intellectual Property Court. The hearing was held in April 2026.

During trial, the defendant argued that its registered trademark was “Ji Huiwu”. It claimed that the character “Cha” was a generic term available for everyone, and it had merely rearranged Chinese characters, hence no trademark infringement.

The Nanning Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the defence and held that the defendant had crossed two legal red‑lines.

Red‑line 1: Infringement of exclusive trademark‑right 

Signs and labels used by the defendant such as “Cha Ji” and “Chaji Huiwu”, as well as the product name “Boya Jue Xian”, were identical or highly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks “Chagee”, “Cha Ji” and “Boya Jue Xian”. Used for identical tea‑drink services, they were very likely to cause confusion and misrecognition among relevant public and constituted trademark infringement.

Red‑line 2: Unfair competition 

Without permission from the plaintiff, the defendant registered and practically used the distinctive element “Cha Ji” from the plaintiff’s registered trademarks as its enterprise trade‑name, which constituted typical “free‑riding” conduct.

The court held that both marks consisted of female‑portrait graphics, orange backgrounds and four‑character names containing “Cha Ji”, which itself is a registered trademark owned by the plaintiff. Combined together, ordinary consumers would perceive substantial visual similarity.

RMB 350 000 compensation plus public rectification announcement

After hearing, the Nanning Intellectual Property Tribunal handed down the first‑instance judgment in 2026. Considering the defendant’s fault degree, business scale, infringement duration and the right‑holder’s reasonable enforcement expenses, the court ruled as follows:

1. The Guangxi‑based catering company shall compensate the plaintiff for economic losses plus reasonable rights‑protection expenses totalling RMB 350 000.
2. The defendant shall publish a statement in relevant media for no less than seven consecutive days to eliminate adverse impacts caused by the infringement.

The judgment has now taken legal effect.

Zero‑tolerance for “free‑riding” conduct

Founded in 2017, Chagee is a well‑known tea‑drink brand with thousands of domestic and overseas outlets and substantial brand value and market influence. In this case, the defendant deliberately opened its shop merely 20 meters from the authorized store, comprehensively copying visual identity and product names. Its subjective intent to reap undeserved benefits by riding on others’ goodwill was obvious.

This judgment delivers two important judicial signals for intellectual‑property protection.

1. Strict protection: Courts show no tolerance for “free‑riding” conduct that exploits famous‑brand goodwill. By imposing dual liabilities for trademark infringement and unfair competition, a solid legal protection network is built.
2. Effective sanction: The RMB 350 000 comprehensive damage award compensates the right‑holder and creates powerful deterrence against potential infringers.