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 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More