Artist Takes Legal Action Against Copycat Coco Shop

Pithaya, owner of the legendary coco drink shop, spoke out after another shop allegedly copied her brand's color scheme, fonts, menu, and overall design, confusing customers. She clarified that the dispute is not about preventing others from selling coco drinks—anyone can do that—but about the intentional violation of intellectual property rights and the unauthorized use of her brand identity. She revealed she has consulted with lawyers and taken legal action, expressing heartfelt disappointment that the brand she and her team built has been diminished. When asked about criticism from southern influencers, she requested to let society judge and declined further comment.

Pithaya explained that her coco shop started as a student business at Kasetsart University, evolving over time into the legendary brand it is today. This was her first time participating in an agricultural fair in the southern region at Songkhla Nakarin University. She emphasized that the copying is evident from the outset—the colors, fonts, and overall design clearly show intentional replication. She distinguished between selling coco drinks, which anyone can do, and copying the creative concept that makes people recognize it as her shop. The core issue, she stressed, is intellectual property violation and brand identity theft.

Pithaya acknowledged seeing many people replicate her ideas but chose not to pursue legal action, preferring to focus on her own brand. However, this incident deeply upset her, especially when misinformed comments spread on social media. She expressed gratitude to customers and the community for their understanding of the issue. She noted that this situation has raised awareness about intellectual property rights, describing it as a sensitive matter that deserves legal protection. She emphasized that the primary concern is not legal action itself, but the emotional and moral value of her creation being diluted.

She stressed that her shop is not just her individual effort—she employs students to provide them with income, and has never cut their wages or kept all profits for herself. Since the agricultural fair days until now, she has reinvested all shop earnings into development rather than personal gain. The main hurt, she explained, is that something she created and nurtured has been easily devalued through what amounts to intellectual property infringement.