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

November 23, 2016

Important Supreme Court Decision on Suggestive Marks

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The recent amendments to Thailand’s Trademark Act No. 3 B.E. 2559 (2016) introduce a number of significant changes. No changes, however, were made to the requirement of distinctiveness in Section 7, paragraph 2, which states: “a trademark having, or consisting of, a word or clause that has no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, and is not a geographical name as prescribed by the Minister in the Ministerial Notifications (among others), shall be deemed distinctive.”

Brand owners often create marks that directly or indirectly describe their products or services. In Thailand, registrars usually interpret the requirement of descriptiveness strictly, and they have broad discretion in determining the translations of marks and whether certain portions of marks must be disclaimed. In addition, as the Board of Trademarks rarely disagrees with the registrar on these issues, disputes have frequently arisen between brand owners and the Trademark Office over the rejection of suggestive marks for descriptiveness.

In general, a suggestive mark is different from a descriptive mark because in the case of a suggestive mark, a consumer has to use some imagination or creative thinking to determine what kinds of goods or services are being offered under the mark, as opposed to a descriptive mark, where these goods or services are readily apparent from the mark itself.

A decision on distinctiveness was recently issued by the Supreme Court under Supreme Court Case 2587/2559, TMB Bank Public Company Limited v. the Department of Intellectual Property. In this case, the plaintiff filed a trademark application to register the mark “TMB Make THE Difference” ( ) for banking services in Class 36.

After reviewing the application, the registrar agreed to accept the mark for registration on the condition that the plaintiff must disclaim the exclusive right to the words, “Make THE Difference,” because these words are descriptive. The plaintiff did not agree with the registrar’s disclaimer requirement and decided to file an appeal to the Board of Trademarks.

The Board of Trademarks confirmed the registrar’s decision that the words must be disclaimed on the basis that they are descriptive. The Board also found that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff had widely and continuously used the words “Make THE Difference” to the point where they had gained a secondary meaning.

The plaintiff then filed a complaint to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), contending that the Board of Trademarks’ decision on the disclaimer was incorrect because “Make THE Difference” is an unusual combination of the three individual words, and together, they are not directly descriptive of the character or quality of the services.

The IP&IT Court agreed with the registrar’s and the Board of Trademarks’ assessments and ordered the plaintiff’s case to be dismissed. The plaintiff then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took a different view toward the issue and considered the meaning of the words in the context of the plaintiff’s services.

The Supreme Court found that “Make THE Difference” is not a phrase common to other trade words published by the Trademark Office and that these words, together, are not directly descriptive of commercial banking services. The Supreme Court, therefore, ultimately concluded that the mark “TMB Make THE Difference” is registrable and the plaintiff was not required to disclaim the exclusive right to the words “Make THE Difference.” The Board of Trademarks’ decision had to be withdrawn.

It is striking that the Supreme Court appears to have a more nuanced approach in making determinations based on the descriptiveness of a mark. In this decision, the Supreme Court appears to be clearly distinguishing between suggestive marks and descriptive marks. If the reasoning that underlies this decision is subsequently followed by the registrar and the Board of Trademarks, this decision should have a lasting impact on the registrability of suggestive marks in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
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