Enhancing the Efficiency of Court Proceedings in Thai Trademark Disputes

April 22, 2024

Enhancing the Efficiency of Court Proceedings in Thai Trademark Disputes

Trademark disputes in Thailand have undergone a significant transformation with the recent implementation of streamlined procedures aimed at expediting legal proceedings. This article explores the traditional process for resolving noncomplex trademark cases and introduces the latest regulatory amendments designed to enhance efficiency within the Thai legal framework.

Traditional Process Overview

The trademark registration process in Thailand involves several steps, including filing, examination, and granting registration. If the trademark registrar rejects an application on substantive grounds, applicants can appeal to the Board of Trademarks. If the board upholds the registrar’s decision, applicants can then pursue a civil suit with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the trademark registrar’s and the board’s orders.

Previous Regulations and Practice

Historically, civil cases concerning trademark registrations followed standard procedures outlined in Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, with specific adaptations for intellectual property matters under the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996). Proceedings entailed various stages, including settlement of issues, evidence hearing, and judgment hearing, culminating in the opportunity for appeal.

New Regulations and Practice

In 2023, a pivotal development emerged with the issuance of Regulation for Intellectual Property and International Trade Cases B.E. 2566 (2023). This regulatory update introduced section 18, which deals with cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions, such as those concerning trademark nondistinctiveness or opposition cases against Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property. Section 18 grants the IP&IT Court the authority to order parties to submit documents and evidence without the need for witness examination, thereby streamlining proceedings.

Below is a comparison of the trademark procedures for cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions:

Traditional Approach

Streamlined Approach

Implementation and Implications

In practice, the implementation of section 18 has significantly expedited the resolution of trademark disputes. This accelerated process benefits brand owners seeking expedited trademark registration. However, there are potential implications, particularly for cases requiring nuanced examination and cross-examination of witnesses. While the expedited procedure enhances efficiency for noncomplex cases, it may pose challenges for litigants reliant on detailed witness testimony to substantiate their claims.

Conclusion

The evolution of trademark dispute resolution in Thailand reflects a commitment to enhancing efficiency while balancing procedural fairness. The introduction of streamlined procedures under section 18 of the regulation mentioned above marks a significant milestone in the legal landscape, offering a swifter avenue for resolving noncomplex trademark cases. As stakeholders adapt to these regulatory changes, ongoing evaluation and refinement will be crucial to ensuring a balanced and effective dispute resolution framework.

Related Professionals

Waralee Sripawadkul

Thailand

+66 2056 5869

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

May 2, 2024

Myanmar Begins Publication of Applications under Trademark Law

On May 1, 2024, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) issued its first publication of trademark applications under the country’s 2019 Trademark Law. Parties are now able to oppose any of the applied-for marks in the publication, which is accessible from the IPD’s website, in accordance with stipulations of Myanmar law. This is a substantial development showing progress toward the registration of marks under the Trademark Law. The online publication of the applications provides the details of each mark, applicant, and representative. In addition, it discloses relevant information such as disclaimers, color claims, mark translations or transliterations, applicable priority dates, as well as specifications of goods and services under the Nice Classification. Any person (individual or legal entity) can file an opposition against an applied-for mark within 60 days of publication by citing significant absolute or relative grounds as specified in the relevant sections of the Trademark Law. Oppositions must use the official form specified in the Trademark Rules, and the filing fee is MMK 150,000 per mark (regardless of the number of classes) plus a MMK 300 bank charge. Anyone, including interested parties or their local representatives, can file the opposition at the IPD. If an opposition is not filed within the stipulated 60-day period, the IPD will proceed with the trademark registration without conducting any substantive examination for similarity or priority. Thus, mark owners, rights holders, and other interested parties should closely monitor the IPD’s publication of applied-for marks so they can take any necessary actions and potentially file oppositions to protect their rights and interests. There has not yet been any official announcement on how often these publications will be issued. For more information on the IPD’s mark publication activities, or on any aspect of protecting intellectual property in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding

March 25, 2024

Fashion Law 2024 – Vietnam

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have provided an updated Vietnam chapter for Fashion Law 2024, a guide to law surrounding the business of fashion in jurisdictions around the world. The guide, which covers 20 key jurisdictions in the global fashion industry, offers insights into local legal frameworks for a range of issues, such as brand enforcement and protection, e-commerce and marketing, and sustainability. The Vietnam chapter of Fashion Law 2024 provides detailed information on the following topics: Main intellectual property rights for fashion products Contractual arrangements in manufacturing, distribution, and advertising Regulations and enforcement of online marketing Unfair competition rules and judicial interpretation Specific regulations on sustainability and ESG in fashion Special import and export rules for fashion products The full Vietnam chapter is available for free on the Global Legal Post website. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter to the guide.

March 25, 2024

Fashion Law 2024 – Thailand

Tilleke & Gibbins has provided an updated Thailand chapter for Fashion Law 2024 from Global Legal Post. The guide covers 20 key jurisdictions in the global fashion industry, offering insights into local legal frameworks surrounding issues such as brand enforcement and protection, e-commerce and marketing, and sustainability considerations. The Thailand chapter of Fashion Law 2024 provides detailed information on the following topics: Main intellectual property rights for fashion products Contractual arrangements in manufacturing, distribution, and advertising Regulations and enforcement of online marketing Unfair competition rules and judicial interpretation Specific regulations on sustainability and ESG in fashion Special import and export rules for fashion products Top of Form The full Thailand chapter is available for free on the Global Legal Post website. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to the guide.

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

Industries

Practices

April 22, 2024