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 4, 2014

Board of Trademarks Decisions Highlight Difficulty of Cancelling Mark for Non-Use

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

The Thai Trademark Act allows any interested party or the registrar to file a petition with the Board of Trademarks to cancel a trademark registration on the basis of non-use. In order for a mark to be cancelled, it is necessary to prove the following:

  • At the time of seeking such registration, the proprietor had no good-faith intent to use the trademark for any of the goods or services covered by the application and, in reality, the trademark has never been used for such goods or services in a good-faith manner; or
  • During the three years prior to the petition for cancellation, there was no good-faith use of the trademark for the registered goods/services.

Section 63 of the Thai Trademark Act clearly places the burden on the petitioner to prove that the proprietor had no good-faith intent to use the mark and that, in reality, the trademark has never been used. As a consequence, in cancellation proceedings, it is problematic to assess whether there is determinative evidence regarding the intent to use or actual use of the mark.

Trademark law in some countries shifts the burden to prove actual use or intent to use to the owner of the mark. For example, Section 100 of the UK Trademark Act 1994 requires the proprietor to show that use has, in fact, occurred. The US Lanham Act requires the owner of a mark to show intent to resume commercial use. The Thai Trademark Act, however, does not have such provisions. This makes it difficult to cancel a trademark on the ground of non-use. The following decisions of the Board of Trademarks reflect such difficulty.

In Decision No 44/2556 (September 5, 2013), the petitioner filed a petition for cancellation based on non-use against a trademark registration for goods in Class 6 and submitted a report conducted by an independent investigation firm. The report demonstrated that no actual use of the mark had been found. The Board of Trademarks, however, concluded that such evidence was insufficient to prove non-use, even though the proprietor of the mark had not submitted any reply or evidence of use in response to the non-use allegation.

Decision No 13/2555 (December 22, 2012) involved a registered service mark in Class 44. As above, the owner of the registered mark did not submit a response to the cancellation action and the board considered the cancellation ex parte. The petitioner claimed that the registered service mark had never been used, because the owner of the mark had never obtained any license or standard certificate from the relevant authority. Together with this argument, the petitioner submitted documents printed from the relevant authority’s website showing that no license to conduct the registered service had been given to the proprietor. In addition, the petitioner submitted information taken from the proprietor’s website showing that the proprietor merely operated the business in countries other than Thailand.

However, the Board of Trademarks found that such evidence was insufficient to prove the absence of use and an intent not to use. The reasons were that the document submitted by the petitioner was printed from a website and was not a confirmation letter from the Office of Health Business Promotion, and that the petitioner had not presented the relevant law indicating that it is mandatory to obtain a license to operate a health business.

Based on these decisions, it can be concluded that, even if the owner of a registered mark is in default of appearance, the board can still proceed with its consideration and make a decision on the case ex parte, and the petitioner must sufficiently prove that the registered mark is not actually being used. Moreover, investigation reports or documents taken from the Internet seem to be insufficient to prove non-use or an intent not to use.

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in May 2014. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
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