On July 8, 2026, Thailand’s Specialized Appeals Court issued a second-instance ruling on the long-standing trademark dispute between Luckin Coffee and the Thai company Royal 50R Group: It dismissed the defendant’s appeal, affirmed that Luckin Coffee holds superior rights to the disputed trademark, upheld the revocation of the defendant’s registered trademark, and maintained the court’s previous rulings, including a permanent injunction, 10 million baht in damages, and ongoing compensation. With this ruling, Luckin has secured a final victory in its efforts to protect its rights against malicious trademark squatting in Thailand.
Who is the defendant?
According to public records, Thailand’s Royal 50R Group is a local Thai enterprise with business operations spanning retail, new energy, tourism, real estate, and the food and beverage industry. Its subsidiaries include companies bearing the same names as well-known brands, such as Luckin Coffee (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Wall Street Consulting (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and TikTok (Thailand) Co., Ltd., as well as “Ping An Pharmacy (Thailand)” and “TikTok Coffee.” Among these, Luckin Coffee (Thailand) Co., Ltd. is legally registered in Thailand and operates more than ten stores. The group’s shareholders include Thai and Chinese investors, and Royal 50R Group Co., Ltd. was incorporated on May 19, 2023; Luckin Coffee (Thailand)’s total revenue in 2021 was approximately 1.41 million baht. In December 2023, the Royal 50R Group also sued Luckin Coffee for trademark infringement, seeking damages of 10 billion baht (approximately 2 billion RMB).
How did the court rule?
During the trial, the defendant argued that it had lawfully obtained the trademark registration in question in Thailand as early as 2020 and was therefore entitled to use the relevant mark to conduct business locally. Luckin, however, pointed out that its brand had long been in use in China and numerous other countries and regions overseas, where it had achieved a high level of recognition. The defendant, fully aware of the existence of the Luckin brand, still applied to register a highly similar trademark and operated a coffee business in the same category, demonstrating clear subjective malice in free-riding on another’s goodwill.
In February 2025, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court of Thailand issued its first-instance judgment, upholding Luckin’s primary claims. The court held that, considering the timing of the establishment of both brands, their market influence, trademark design, and actual usage, the defendant’s application to register the disputed trademark was not made in good faith but rather to exploit the market recognition already established by the Luckin brand for commercial gain. Consequently, the court determined that Luckin held superior rights to the disputed trademark, ordered the revocation of the defendant’s relevant trademark registration, prohibited the continued use of the disputed mark, and awarded Luckin 10 million Thai baht (approximately 2.2 million RMB) in damages, as well as to pay ongoing damages of 100,000 Thai baht per day for the duration of the infringement.
Thai Luckin Files Counterclaim Against Chinese Luckin for 2 Billion Yuan: Group’s “Chinese-Owned Background” Comes to Light – FoodTalks Global Food News
The defendant subsequently filed an appeal. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found that the trial court had made no errors in its assessment of the facts or application of the law, and that there was sufficient basis for determining that Luckin held superior rights to the trademark in question. The court upheld all major rulings of the first instance—including the revocation of the trademark, the issuance of a permanent injunction, and the award of damages—and dismissed all of the defendant’s appeals.
How Did This First-of-Its-Kind Case Come About?
It is understood that this case is a landmark precedent in Thai judicial history, marking the first time the concept of “malicious trademark squatting” has been formally recognized. What makes this case unique is that the defendant had completed the registration of the trademark in question in Thailand as early as 2020 and had been conducting business under the name “Luckin Coffee” for an extended period. Traditionally, trademark registration is generally considered to signify the acquisition of rights, and foreign companies that fail to complete local registration in a timely manner often face significant difficulties in enforcing their rights later on. However, the Thai court did not rely solely on the chronological order of registration as the determining factor. Instead, it comprehensively considered the timing of brand establishment by both parties, market recognition, trademark design, actual usage, and whether the defendant acted with subjective malice to free-ride on another’s goodwill when applying for registration. Ultimately, the court ruled that Luckin Coffee held superior rights to the trademark in question and upheld the revocation of the defendant’s trademark registration, providing a valuable reference for trademark protection for Chinese companies expanding overseas.
