Introduction:In 2018, market regulatory authorities in Wuxi uncovered a major case of counterfeit Starbucks instant coffee. The involved company, Shuangshan Food, was ordered by the court to pay punitive damages of 21.72 million yuan. This case not only exposed common tactics used in intellectual property infringement but also reflected the fierce competition in the coffee markets of Taiwan and mainland China. This article details the full story of the case and analyzes the growth strategies of domestic brands such as Luckin and MANNER.
As coffee consumption habits have become more widespread, brand infringement incidents in the market have emerged one after another. In 2018, Wuxi market regulatory authorities received a tip-off from the public and discovered an instant coffee product on the market that closely mimicked the appearance of “Starbucks.” Upon further investigation, it was found that these counterfeit goods were being sold on a large scale by Xiamen Shuangshan Food Co., Ltd. Their sales network spanned 18 provinces across the country, involving over 50 downstream merchants, with the total case value reaching 7 million yuan.
Shockingly, Shuangshan Company was fully aware that the products they were selling were not genuine, yet they deliberately imitated Starbucks’ official packaging design and pushed these counterfeit instant coffees into the market. This act not only severely infringed upon Starbucks’ trademark rights but also led many consumers to unknowingly purchase inferior imitation products. Investigations showed that the distribution of these counterfeit products was extremely widespread, and the number of affected consumers is estimated to be considerable.
In 2021, the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court issued a first-instance verdict in this case, ordering Shuangshan Company to issue a public apology and pay punitive damages as high as 21.72 million yuan. This compensation amount is equivalent to three times the value of the case, fully demonstrating the judicial authorities’ zero-tolerance attitude toward intellectual property infringement. This verdict not only brought justice to Starbucks but also served as a strong warning to other potential infringers.
This counterfeiting case is just the tip of the iceberg, as similar knockoff products continue to emerge in the market. From “Lei Bi” posing as Sprite to “Zhou Zhu Pai” laundry detergent imitating Diao Pai, these cases show that some unscrupulous businesses specifically exploit details that consumers tend to overlook. Notably, in this case, Shuangshan Company didn’t even bother to make basic modifications to the packaging—they directly reused Starbucks’ brand visual elements, making only slight adjustments in details, such as misspelling “COFFEE” as “CAFFEE” and tweaking the design details of the coffee cup graphics.
For the average consumer, identifying these subtle differences can indeed be challenging. Without carefully comparing the text and graphic details on the packaging, it’s easy to mistakenly purchase counterfeit products thinking they are genuine. It is recommended that when buying coffee products, consumers should not only watch out for unusually low-priced items but also carefully inspect the brand logos, spelling accuracy, and overall print quality on the packaging.
It is worth noting that while Starbucks actively defends its brand rights, domestic coffee brands in China are rapidly rising with different market strategies. Take Luckin Coffee as an example: the brand successfully went public on the NASDAQ in the United States. Although it faced financial turmoil and was once delisted, it later managed to turn losses into profits and there have even been reports of its return to the U.S. capital market. Another typical case is MANNER COFFEE, which has gained widespread praise among younger consumers due to its more competitive pricing and excellent coffee flavor.
Although Starbucks maintains a high level of brand recognition globally and offers consistently stable product quality, it is facing strong challenges from domestic specialty coffee brands in terms of price sensitivity and flavor innovation. For example, for the same cup of latte, MANNER often provides a more attractive price and more outstanding coffee flavor performance. Currently, Starbucks’ main competitive advantage in the Chinese market is more reflected in its thoughtfully designed third-space store environment.
To strengthen its market competitiveness, Starbucks continues to optimize its offline store layout. Recently, in collaboration with Meituan, it launched the “1971 Lounge” service, which offers the ability to book exclusive spaces through an online platform to meet consumers’ needs for gatherings or work, further expanding the traditional concept of the “third space.” However, it is undeniable that many consumers’ impressions of Starbucks still focus on its recognizable cup designs, store ambiance, and the brand’s cultural attitude, which has sparked discussions in the past.
The above content is compiled by CoffeeHunters, a coffee news website.
