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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation