CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile2 entries
2020
Court rules in CoCo trademark and competition dispute
Ruling
In a first-instance judgment, the court found that Hangzhou Doke Biotech Chain Co., Ltd.’s use of “都可” in its company name constituted confusing unfair competition. It ordered the company to change its name, publish a statement, and pay Shanghai Fuyi Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. RMB 55,000; the court found that Weimeng Chuangke had not infringed.
Source excerpt
一审裁判结果为，被告杭州都可生物科技连锁有限公司于本判决生效之日（2020年11月19日）起三十日内变更企业名称，并不得在变更后的企业名称中使用“都可”字样；被告杭州都可生物科技连锁有限公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内在《钱江晚报》上发表声明，消除因实施本案侵权行为给原告上海馥邑企业管理有限公司造成的不良影响，声明的内容、发布位置须经本院审核；被告杭州都可生物科技连锁有限公司于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿原告上海馥邑企业管理有限公司经济损失人民币5万元及为本案支付的合理开支人民币5,000元，合计人民币55,000元；驳回原告上海馥邑企业管理有限公司其余诉讼请求。
法院认为，都可公司自认经营业务包含奶茶，其将原告注册商标中的主要部分“都可”作为企业名称中的字号在后使用，且经营业务与原告商标使用的商品及服务相同或类似，容易误导公众，足以引人误认为是原告商品或者与原告存在特定联系，属混淆行为，故依法构成不正当竞争；微梦创科公司不知道其网络用户涉嫌利用其网络服务侵害他人民事权益，且在事后已采取必要措施，故不构成侵权。
2019
Hong Kong protest receipt controversy
Some Hong Kong CoCo franchise owners printed messages supporting the Hong Kong protesters on customer receipts. The episode became controversial because political messaging appeared through local outlets operating under the CoCo brand. The available source does not establish a formal corporate campaign or a documented global response.