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 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
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More