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

July 11, 2022

Board of Trademarks Limits Parties Entitled to Request Non-use Cancellation

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Background

In Thailand, as in other countries, there are many possible legal grounds for the cancellation of registered trademarks. The non-use ground, under Section 63 of the Trademark Act, has long been one of the most challenging grounds for petitioners to achieve.

Section 63 provides that any interested party can ask the Board of Trademarks to cancel a trademark registration if they can provide proof that, at the time of the application, the proprietor of the mark had no intent of using it for the designated goods. The party requesting cancellation must also show that, in the three years prior to the cancellation request, the mark had not been used in good faith for the goods for which it is registered. The proprietor of the trademark can defend itself against the cancellation request by proving that non-use was unintentional and was due to “exceptional circumstances in the trade”.

One of the reasons why non-use cancellation has been challenging in Thailand is that the Trademark Act does not prescribe the exact timeframe within which a mark must be used after it has been registered. Therefore, in some cases the Board of Trademarks found that the mere argument that the trademark owner had plans to use the mark in the future was suf cient to dismiss a non-use cancellation petition, even though the owner did not provide any proof to verify this.

Recent Board of Trademarks decision

In this case, a petitioner’s trademark application was rejected by the trademark registrar for being confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The petitioner then led a request for non-use cancellation against the cited trademark. At the same time, the petitioner decided to remove from its own trademark application the services that appeared to overlap with some of the goods connected to the registered trademark. This led the trademark registrar to revoke the citation and allow the trademark application to proceed to registration. However, once the application was no longer deemed to con ict with the cited mark, the Board of Trademarks ruled that the petitioner was no longer an ‘interested person’ eligible to le a non-use cancellation request against the cited trademark, and dismissed the non-use cancellation petition without considering its substance.

Comment

This decision seems to narrow the definition of ‘interested person’ under Section 63 to include only parties holding a pending trademark application that has been rejected for being similar to a cited mark. This somewhat contradicts a previous Supreme Court judgment (5333/2558) in a similar cancellation case under a different section of the Trademark Act that also uses the expression ‘interested person’. In that case, the court defined an ‘interested person’ as a party who has a “connecting point” with the mark that is the subject of the non-use cancellation request. The court’s language suggests that the “connecting point” is not necessarily limited to the rejection of a trademark application, but could also include other circumstances whereby use of one’s mark could somehow be affected by the existence of a prior registered mark.

Whether the Board of Trademarks’ decision in the present matter will be relied upon in future non-use cancellation proceedings remains to be seen. If it is, success rates for non-use cancellation requests will likely become even lower than they currently are.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
Read More
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 10, 2026
Indonesia’s trademark prosecution process has been significantly streamlined with Ministry of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (MOLR 5/2026) coming into effect on February 23, 2026. In straightforward cases without opposition, applicants may now see their trademarks proceed to registration within three months from filing—a substantial improvement over previous practice. The regulation also introduces detailed procedures for recording changes of name and address and for transferring rights over pending applications. It enhances the role of the Ministry of Law’s regional offices in assisting local individuals and SMEs, adds provisions governing force majeure situations, implements new requirements for collective trademarks, and formalizes several practices already in place. Substantive Examination Acceleration The most significant change under MOLR 5/2026 concerns substantive examination. The regulation now explicitly requires that applications be published within 15 days of filing, followed by a two-month publication period. Oppositions must be filed only within this window; late submissions will not be processed, even if the system accepts payment. The new regulation requires the Trademark Office (TMO) to forward copies of any opposition to applicants within 14 days of receipt. If no opposition is filed, substantive examination begins immediately after the publication period ends and will be completed within 30 days. If an opposition is filed, the examination is to be finalized within 90 days of the counterstatement filing date. These timelines enable unopposed applications to move from close of publication to final decision in roughly one month. If an application is provisionally refused during ex officio examination, the applicant has 30 working days from the date of notification to file a response. However, the regulation does not specify the timeline for subsequent reexamination after the response is filed. In recent practice, the TMO has been completing reexamination within approximately two to three months. Ownership Recordals May Pause Substantive
Read More