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

December 1, 2014

Describing Goods and Services for Trademark Registration in Thailand

Informed Counsel

On March 1, 2013, Thailand adopted into its system of  trademark registration the Tenth Edition of the Nice Agreement, under which there are 34 classifications of goods (Classes 1 to 34) and 11 classifications of services (Classes 35 to 45). The classifications—collectively known as the International Classification of Goods and Services—are generally followed by Thailand’s trademark registrars, but at times, they require clearer and more specific descriptions for certain goods and services.

In this article, we explore the ways in which goods and services should be described in order for them to be accepted by trademark registrars in the desired classification for trademark registration in Thailand.

The Classification System

Under Section 9 of the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), an application to register a trademark may be made for particular kinds of goods. Most applicants wish to obtain the broadest protection possible when filing a trademark application—by identifying their products in broadly descriptive terms, applicants make accommodation for the future expansion of their business and products. Thailand’s trademark registrars, however, do not accept terms that are broad in nature, such as class headings and most sub-class headings—instead, goods and services must be individually listed on an item-by-item basis.

On the other hand, descriptions that are excessively detailed may cause the applicant’s product to be classified in alternate classes and, as such, should be deleted. In addition, applicants should avoid using the following unpermitted words and combinations of words in the specification: “including,” “especially,” “thereof,” “for example,” and “such as.”

Amending Numbers of Goods

Recently, trademark registrars in Thailand have refused petitions to amend filed goods which increase the number of goods originally filed for, even if the amended goods are within the scope of the broader goods. With this in mind, applicants should specify their products in detail when filing their original application. Applicants should also be sure to list the number of goods for each item separately when filing their trademark application form.

Inappropriate Descriptions and Recommendations

We list below some examples of inappropriate descriptions of goods and services and our recommendations for how they should be amended:

  • In Class 1, the terms “chemicals” and “chemicals used in industry” are inappropriate descriptions. Applicants should describe the goods in more detail, e.g., “chemical substances for use in the cosmetics industry,” “chemical substances for use in the chemical industry,” etc. As this class does not include chemicals for medical science, the term “other than for medical or veterinary purposes” may be used for unclear specifications (such as chemical preparations for analyses in laboratories, other than for medical or veterinary purposes, etc.). 
  • In Class 3, the terms “cosmetics,” “make-up,” and “perfumery” are inappropriate descriptions. More specificity is needed. Previously, the term “cosmetics for use with eyes, lips, cheeks, and hair” was considered appropriate, but now, it is no longer accepted. However, terms such as “facial make-up kits,” “facial skin care cosmetic kits,” and “body skin care cosmetic kits” are accepted. Instead of using “perfumery,” applicants may use “perfume,” “eau de cologne,” and “eau de toilet.”
  • In Class 5, applicants may use the term “for medical use” to describe goods which are unclear and may be classified in other classes, e.g., “nutritional additives for medical use,” “nutritional food supplements for medical use,” “dietetic beverages for medical use,” etc.
  • In Class 7, applicants may use the terms “machines” or “parts of machines” to describe unclear goods. Examples include “drilling press (machines),” “electric cutters (machines),” “caulking guns (parts of machines),” “air spray guns (parts of machines),” “valves (parts of machines),” “crankcases (parts of machines),” etc.
  • In Class 10, for unclear goods that may be classified in other classes, applicants may add the term “for medical purposes” to describe these goods. Examples are “x-ray apparatus,” “x-ray photographs,” “x-ray tubes,” “protection devices against x-rays,” etc.
  • In Class 25, the terms “pants” and “shoes” are inappropriate descriptions. The term “pants” should be specified as “pants (excluding sports pants and underpants),” “sports pants,” or “underpants.” Similarly, the broad term “shoes” must be broken down as either “shoes (excluding sports shoes)” or “sports shoes.”
  • In Class 28, the term “toys” is an inappropriate description, but the terms “toys made of plastic,” “toys made of rubber,” “toys made of metal,” and “toys made of paper” are acceptable.
  • In Class 35, the term “retail services” is inappropriate. The terms “business management assistance for retail services” and “the bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods, enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase those goods” are recommended for applicants seeking broad protection for these kinds of services.

How to Approach Trademark Registrars

The International Classification of Goods and Services provides helpful general guidelines for developing descriptions, but because it contains few examples, it is by no means a definitive guide. In addition, not all of the descriptions that are stated in the system can be relied upon, as some of the items have not been accepted by trademark registrars.

Past experience in working with particular trademark registrars is crucial in understanding their requirements for acceptable specifications. Goods that applicants have registered in the past, however, may later become unacceptable, as each trademark registrar can differ in their points of view. Therefore, in dealing with trademark registrars, applicants should expect the unexpected, and take measures to fully understand the current practice.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with