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 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,