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

February 26, 2018

Sound Marks in Thailand: Understanding the Registration Requirements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Registration of sound marks has been possible in Thailand since September 1, 2017, based on amendments to the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) and the issuance of Ministerial Regulation No. 5 B.E. 2560 (2017). Tilleke & Gibbins was pleased to be the first law firm to file a sound mark application in Thailand, and, as of January 12, 2018, 12 sound mark applications have been filed at the Thai Department of Intellectual Property for several types of products, including sanitary napkins, baby diapers, clothing, food, medicine, technology gadgets, business administration services, vehicles, and games and toys.

In this article, we provide an overview of the registration process and important guidelines that brand owners should consider in seeking protection of their sound marks.

Eligibility for Registration

Similar to other types of trademarks, a sound mark will be eligible for registration if it fulfills three requirements: distinctiveness, not being prohibited by law, and not being identical or confusingly similar to a registered or pending-for-examination mark.

However, in addition to these three requirements, the law has narrowed the interpretation of distinctiveness for a sound mark to avoid any adverse effects on the commercial competition environment, by requiring that a sound must not be:

  • A sound that is directly descriptive of the characteristics of the relevant goods or services. Examples of descriptive marks could include the sound of cows mooing when used in relation to milk, the sound of a dog barking when used in relation to pet products, or the sound of cheering and clapping when used in relation to competitions.
  • A natural sound associated with the relevant goods or services. Associated sounds could include the sound of ducks when used in relation to products made from duck, or the sound of cutting something with a metal tool when used in relation to knives or other cutting or shearing equipment.
  • A sound produced by the operation of specific goods or services. For example, an applicant would not be able to register the sound of a toilet flushing when used in relation to sanitary products, the sound of a camera shutter when used in relation to cameras, or the siren of an ambulance when used in relation to ambulance transportation and rescue transportation services.

It is important to note that the sound mark for which registration is sought should not be longer than 30 seconds; otherwise, it is possible that the mark may be deemed as lacking distinctiveness and incapable of functioning as a trademark.

Application Requirements

When filing a sound mark application, the law requires that the applicant include a clear description of the sound in the application for the sound mark and provide a flash drive containing an audio file of the sound mark in MP3 format. In the description space of the application, the applicant must indicate: (1) the type of sound mark (whether it is a human sound, animal sound, music/melodic sound, or other type of sound); (2) the context in which the mark will be used; and (3) the closest Thai syllabic expression of the melody, if possible.

For example, if a television broadcasting company would like to file an application for its theme song, the applicant can indicate that the type of sound is a “bell sound,” the context is “the starting sound of the ‘ABC’ television program,” and the closest syllabic expression of the sound is “ding, ding, ding.”

Moreover, the applicant may also include the sound’s description as a musical notation, a sonograph, a spectrogram, or other forms of transcription to illustrate the proposed sound in section 4 of the application, added separately as a continuation sheet. For example, an applicant could write, “the trademark is a sound mark consisting of five consecutive notes, namely ABCED,” as shown in the musical notation below:
 
    

    
Another example would be, “the mark consists of the spoken words HI SA MI TSU superimposed over musical sounds in the key of D major, namely, the melody notes, E, A, E, and two F-sharp notes.”

   
    
If a sound mark has been widely used or registered in a jurisdiction, it is advisable to submit evidence of use in the form of an MP3 file, a video file, or a certificate of registration, at the time of filing of the sound mark application to improve the chances of successful registration and defend against any possible opposition.

Considerations

As music can be protected under Thai copyright law, in the case where a sound mark contains a piece of copyrighted music, it is recommended that the applicant obtain a license for use of the copyrighted work as a sound mark, or an assignment from the copyright owner, in order to avoid the potential risk of copyright infringement. Additionally, for the sake of clarity, it is advisable to indicate in the application the identity of the author of the particular copyrighted musical work used in the new sound mark, and briefly explain how the applicant obtained the right to use the copyright (i.e., through licensing or assignment).

Another issue for sound mark applicants arises when a sound mark contains words that are identical or confusingly similar to prior registered or pending-for-examination marks in the same class or relevant classes. If that is the case, there is the possibility that the registrar may refuse registration of the mark based on its similarity to an earlier word mark, despite the fact that they are different types of marks. Therefore, before proceeding with the filing of a sound mark, it is advisable to conduct a trademark search, not only for similar sound marks, but also for comparable word marks.

Brand owners should be sure to account for all of these considerations in their sound mark application, so that they can successfully protect those sounds that are recognizable identifiers of their business.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More