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 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
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