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

March 9, 2015

Graphical User Interfaces

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The advent of mobile computing has resulted in widespread use of portable technology in Thailand. The affordability of portable devices, combined with an insatiable thirst for the latest technological triumph to hit the market, has led to unparalleled access to various means of communication and a perpetual stream of cutting-edge innovations.

One innovation in particular, the Graphical User Interface (GUI), has gained significant ground in recent years. A GUI is a type of visually-enhanced interface that allows a user to interact with an electronic device through use of computer-generated items, such as screen displays, icons, and visual images.

Given the popularity of GUIs and the fiercely competitive nature of the technology market, it is imperative that GUI owners focus on securing adequate intellectual property (IP) protection for their creations. The potential benefits of conducting business in the GUI market could easily be offset by a failure to assert IP rights over a GUI.

Having noted the importance of securing IP protection for GUIs, we will now discuss how such protection can be obtained.  

A design, as defined in Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended in 1992 and 1999, is “any configuration of a product or composition of lines or colors which gives a special appearance to a product and can serve as a pattern for a product of industry or handicraft.”

Although Thai law has yet to define a GUI or explicitly address the legal protection criteria applicable to GUIs, in practice, protection can be sought for a GUI by making an application for a patent design with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). A design patent application for a GUI abides by the same formalities and requirements as other design patent applications.

To qualify as a design patent, a design must be new and industrially applicable. The term of protection for a design patent is ten years from the date the application is filed in Thailand. This term cannot be extended.  The design system in Thailand is a substantive examination system. As Thailand operates an “absolute novelty” and “first-to-file” patent system, new designs should be kept as confidential as possible until a design patent application date has been obtained. A design that has been disclosed to the public and/or patented or registered elsewhere prior to filing a Thai application is not patentable in Thailand.

An applicant should consider the following factors when seeking protection of a GUI:

  • The title of a GUI design application should be “A Pattern or a Design for a Display Screen.”
  • Dashed lines in drawings submitted to the Thai Patent Office are not permitted. All lines appearing in drawings must be solid.
  • The drawings must not be contained within a frame.
  • Shadowed areas or reflections are not allowed in the drawings.
  • Words, numbers, letters, and any commonly-used symbols, such as telephone and mail symbols, must be disclaimed.
  • There is no need to show how the design functions or show the product design in its intended environment.
  • An explanatory letter describing functions of symbols should accompany the set of drawings submitted to the Thai Patent Office.

The following are samples of GUIs previously published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette:                  

From past experience, GUIs that have a suitable product name, a statement of novelty, and distinctiveness, as well as an appropriate drawing, are capable of being protected under the Thai Patent Law.

While such new, emerging technology will create challenges for legal practitioners and policy makers, revising the law to clarify the protection that is available for GUIs would boost Thailand’s attractiveness as a hub for technology investment and foster significant economic growth in the country.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More