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

February 28, 2018

Honda Wins Landmark Patent Design Infringement Case in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand has a reputation as a challenging country in which to enforce patent rights. The accuracy of this perception can be debated, but precedent cases have certainly demonstrated that Thai courts have been conservative in awarding damages to the winning party. In patent litigation cases, in particular, the courts often award damages that, in the view of the winning party, represent only a fraction of the actual damages caused by patent infringement.

However, Honda Motors Co., Ltd. (Honda) recently won a groundbreaking design patent infringement case that should provide new optimism for patent owners. In rendering its decision, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (Court) took two steps that made this a landmark case. First, the Court granted significant, meaningful damages to Honda, as the patent owner. And second, the Court took a novel approach in determining the prescription period for the infringer’s offense—a legal principle that could be significant not only for this case, but also for future design patent infringement cases.

Suspected Infringement of Honda’s Designs

Honda was granted protection for the designs of its Honda Wave 100S motorcycle in several countries, including Thailand. This involved five separate design patents: (1) a handle cover with a headlight for a motorcycle; (2) a front top cover for a motorcycle; (3) a center cover for a motorcycle; (4) a lens for a rear combination lamp for a motorcycle; and (5) a motorcycle.

The Honda Wave 100S is one of the most popular motorcycle models in Thailand. Given this prominent market position, Honda took a proactive approach to monitor the market for imitations of the Honda Wave 100S motorcycle and its parts that would directly compete with Honda’s genuine products. Honda discovered that a leading Chinese motorcycle company (the infringer) was manufacturing and selling two suspected infringing motorcycle models in Thailand under its own brand. After conducting several forensic analyses by experts and patent specialists, Honda came to the conclusion that these two models were infringing all five of Honda’s design patents.

Having tried but failed to settle the dispute by amicable negotiations, Honda filed a civil suit against the infringer on the grounds of design patent infringement. Before the Court could be convinced of the infringement of Honda’s designs, Honda had to frame and present its arguments on various complex issues.

Validity of Design and Standard of Proof

Validity of design is certainly one of the most common issues of dispute considered by the Court. The infringer argued that all five of Honda’s design patents were not validly granted and filed a counterclaim for cancellation of Honda’s design patents. The Court laid out the issues it would take under its consideration:

  • That the design patent law intends to provide protection for the design aesthetics or the outer elements of products (absent any considerations of their functionality); and
  • That the design must meet the necessary legal criteria for novelty (i.e., a new design must be different from each prior art in substance).

In addition, the Court gave clear instructions that the standard of proof for all evidence must be “clear and convincing.” Since the infringer failed to prove its claims, the Court concluded that all of Honda’s design patents were new and valid and thus dismissed the infringer’s counterclaim for cancellation of Honda’s design patents.

Consideration of Design Infringement

While the designs can vary in their details, the Court considered that the whole design or substantial parts of the design must be identical or similar in order to be considered as infringement. The infringer argued that its two motorcycle models did not infringe Honda’s patented designs, as there were many minor differences between its motorcycles and Honda’s designs. Having compared the designs of both parties, the Court ruled that the infringer had infringed Honda’s design patents, opening the door for Honda to claim damages.

Prescription Period and Amount of Damages

In an important development, the Court found that the prescription period for a criminal act could be applied to this case. In general, patent infringement is considered to be both a criminal offense and a civil offense. Although Honda initiated this case under a civil action, which normally means a prescription period of only one year from the date the infringing act and the infringer became known, the Court applied the longer prescription period of 10 years mandated for a criminal offense (from the date of committing the offense) to calculate the amount of damages, citing section 448, paragraph two, of the Civil and Commercial Code. This meant that Honda was able to claim a higher amount of damages due to the longer prescription period allowed under a criminal action.

Ultimately, the Court awarded Honda damages of more than THB 16 million (about USD 500,000), including lawyers’ fees, enforcement expenses, and interest, with the compensation amount being one of the highest ever awarded in a patent infringement lawsuit in Thailand.

This is the first design patent infringement lawsuit that has applied a prescription period for a criminal act in a civil lawsuit in Thailand. This victory not only highlights Honda’s success in being awarded a large sum of damages, but also has implications for the way future litigation in design patent infringement cases will be conducted and for the several notable legal principles laid down by the Court in this precedent decision.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More