Monday, September 21 2026

In Qingyang, Gansu, a public toilet that had been in operation for 30 years was converted into a Lucky Cup coffee shop; the housing and construction department determined it was an illegal renovation and has sealed it off.

Recently, a public toilet in Zhengning County, Qingyang, Gansu, which had been in operation for 30 years, was converted into a Lucky Cup freshly ground coffee shop, sparking heated discussion among local residents and netizens. The second floor of the building is a bathhouse, which is quite well-known locally. After a month of renovation, the coffee brand sign was put up, but then a seal was suddenly affixed. The housing and construction department responded that the project was an illegal conversion because it had not obtained planning and construction permits and had arbitrarily changed the use nature, and it had been sealed according to law. The brand side also stated that the store in question did not meet franchise conditions due to property rights issues and would not pass headquarters review later. The incident reflects the approval and property rights difficulties in converting public facilities for commercial use. [more…]

Nestlé denies any co-branding partnership with STARPER, so why are counterfeit Starbucks stores opening in ever greater numbers?

Recently, a batch of coffee shops named "STARPER COFFEE" has quietly appeared in several small counties across the country. Their storefront designs, brand logos, and even menus are highly similar to those of Starbucks, drawing widespread attention from consumers. These shops claim to be co-branded service stations of Nestlé and Starbucks, but Nestlé has explicitly denied having any contractual relationship with the party that registered the "STARPER" trademark and pointed out that its actions are suspected of trademark infringement. Nestlé also issued a solemn statement emphasizing that the "Starbucks Coffee Service" project has never opened franchising or agency. Meanwhile, the supply chain company involved has applied for multiple similar trademarks, all of which are currently in substantive examination. This article will sort out the whole incident and restore the ins and outs of this brand confusion controversy. [more…]