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​ 

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
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More