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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,