You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 27, 2026

Thailand’s Court of Appeal Affirms Landmark Luckin Coffee Judgment

Subscribe to Updates

In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand.

In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety.

The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting.

Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety

The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case.

The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level.

After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026.

Better Right to the Marks

The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registrations, prohibitions against using the “Luckin Coffee” marks, the Chinese characters “瑞幸咖啡,” and the “deer device” in connection with the defendants’ coffee business, as well as orders requiring changes to the defendants’ corporate name and corporate seal.

A New Approach to Damages in Trademark Squatting Cases

One of the most significant aspects of the appellate judgment is the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the damages award—the largest in Thai intellectual property history. The Court of Appeal upheld the award of THB 10 million in damages, together with continuing damages of THB 100,000 per day from the filing date until the defendants cease their infringing activities. As of the judgment date, the total reached 856 days, bringing the continuing damages to more than THB 85 million and the total award to more than THB 95 million (approximately USD 3 million)—the highest damages ever granted by Thai courts in an intellectual property case.

Historically, obtaining substantial damages in trademark infringement cases in Thailand has been challenging, particularly where actual financial loss is difficult to quantify. Trademark squatting cases present an even more complex issue. The harm may extend beyond diverted sales or lost profits to include disruption to market entry, obstruction of business expansion, reputational harm, and the costs of reclaiming legitimate trademark rights.

The Luckin Coffee judgment demonstrates that damages assessment need not be confined to a narrow calculation of direct lost sales.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered the overall circumstances and severity of the defendants’ conduct, including the nature and extent of the infringement and its broader impact on Luckin Coffee’s trademark rights and business interests. The substantial lump-sum damages, combined with continuing daily damages until cessation of infringement, reflect an approach that recognizes the distinct and ongoing harm caused by systematic trademark squatting.

By affirming the damages award in its entirety, the Court of Appeal has endorsed this approach. The judgment confirms that commercial harm from trademark squatting may be assessed based on the overall nature, severity, and continuing impact of the bad-faith conduct. This provides an important reference point for future trademark enforcement cases where true commercial harm cannot readily be captured through conventional calculations of lost sales or profits.

No More Doubts

The earlier litigation involving Luckin Coffee generated significant discussion about the protection of legitimate international brand owners in Thailand. The first-instance judgment addressed the substantive question of trademark ownership and confirmed Luckin Coffee’s prior and better rights, establishing a clear precedent for cancellation of improperly registered trademarks.

The Court of Appeal has now confirmed the judgment in full.

The result is significant not only for Luckin Coffee but also for other international businesses facing trademark squatting in Thailand. This case establishes three key precedents: (1) the first recognition of the trademark squatting principle by Thai courts; (2) application of the better right doctrine to cancel improperly registered trademarks; and (3) the highest damages award in Thai intellectual property history. It demonstrates that with a carefully structured litigation strategy and sufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct, Thai courts are prepared to cancel improper trademark registrations, impose broad injunctive relief, and award substantial damages reflecting the true commercial impact of trademark squatting.

For Luckin Coffee, the doubts that once surrounded its trademark rights in Thailand have now been answered.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More