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

May 24, 2018

Landmark Victory in Design Patent Infringement Case

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Tilleke & Gibbins is the main external counsel for intellectual property (IP) enforcement work for Honda Access Corporation, a developer, manufacturer, and seller of automotive and motorcycle parts and accessories, and a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Our firm recently assisted the client in several related design patent infringement matters, which culminated in a civil suit filed with Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court against infringing Thai companies. Through the combined efforts of our IP litigation and enforcement lawyers, and our in-house investigation team, we secured a resounding victory for our client in the IP&IT Court in November 2017. In its landmark ruling, the Court awarded our client the largest civil lawsuit compensation amount to date for a design patent infringement case in Thailand at THB 68.65 million (about USD 2.11 million), plus interest, and attorney and court fees.

Previously, Honda Access Corporation claimed rights on four protected design patents for genuine spoilers, used in one of their parent company’s highly popular CITY 2014 model automobile, which were being infringed upon through similar products that were being manufactured and distributed for sale in the Thai market by several infringing companies. The automobile model for which the accessories were made is a valuable commercial product that is consistently ranked first in sales in its market segment in Thailand.

As an initial remedy, the Tilleke & Gibbins IP enforcement team sent warning letters to the infringers. Since the infringer did not respond or cease its infringement, we then proceeded with the case through the IP&IT Court, and successfully obtained a preliminary team, in collaboration with the execution officers, to inspect and seize the infringing goods at all locations that they could be found.

To execute the Court order, our firm’s in-house investigation team conducted an investigation to determine the location of the warehouse and/or factory of such infringing goods, and was able to lead authorities to seize 1,280 infringing car accessories at a warehouse. Later, the company that claimed to own the seized products filed a motion asking to join in the case, with the Court granting the motion and allowing the company to join as an interpleader. The preliminary measure that our team obtained enabled our client to disrupt the infringers’ activities without waiting for the entire time-consuming litigation process.

At the same time, our IP litigation team filed a civil lawsuit with the IP&IT Court requesting damages, including all of Honda Access Corporation’s legal and execution fees, from the infringers. After completion of the hearing of witnesses and waiting for judgment on the merits of the case, our client found that the defendants were still distributing their infringing goods in Thailand through another company. In response to this offense, our firm requested and obtained a preliminary injunction from the IP&IT Court to order the infringers to cease further manufacturing and distribution operations.

In considering the sound arguments and case presented by our lawyers, the substantial evidence gathered by our in-house investigation team, and the defendants’ continued infringement and seeming disregard for the law, the Court rendered a judgment in our client’s favor in November 2017 by deciding that the defendants had indeed infringed on our client’s design patents.

In the landmark ruling, the Court awarded Honda Access Corporation the largest civil lawsuit compensation amount to date for a design patent infringement case in Thailand at THB 68.65 million (about USD 2.11 million), plus 7.5 percent interest per year from September 2016 until the completion of the defendants’ and interpleader’s payments. The Court also ordered the defendants and interpleader to pay our client’s court fees and THB 500,000 (about USD 15,400) in attorney fees.

The Court further ruled that all infringing car accessories in the possession of the defendants and interpleader must be seized and destroyed, with the infringers paying for the destruction. The case marks one of the rare instances in Thai court proceedings in which court officials visited the infringers’ premises to inspect the seized products first-hand.

Tilleke & Gibbins’ efforts not only achieved a landmark ruling for Honda Access Corporation, but also prevented infringers from continuing to manufacture and distribute their design-infringing products, helping to protect our client’s genuine accessories and their strong market position in Thailand, as well as serving as a deterrent against other potential infringers in the future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 31, 2026
Vietnam’s most recent amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended IP Law), passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from April 1, 2026, represents one of the most significant updates to the IP Law in recent years. This amendment modernizes the IP framework, moving a step closer to international standards, while addressing the realities of Vietnam’s booming digital economy, e-commerce growth, and increasing foreign investment, which is crucial for Vietnam’s objective of complete economic transformation. For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and businesses, the changes are largely positive, as they promise faster processes, stronger enforcement tools—especially for online actions—and better commercialization options. However, they also introduce stricter requirements and a need for proactive preparation. Below are some of the most noteworthy changes in the amended IP Law related to trademarks. Significantly Shortened Timelines and Introduction of Fast-Track Examination The statutory timelines under the amended IP Law have been notably reduced: Substantive examination for trademarks is shortened from 9 months to 5 months (from the publication date). The publication period is shortened from 2 months to 1 month. A new fast-track mechanism allows substantive examination in as little as 3 months for qualifying applications (e.g., marks in actual use, facing infringement threats, or meeting government-specified criteria; details to be clarified in implementing regulations). The opposition period is shortened from 5 months to 3 months from publication. This is arguably the most welcome change. Vietnam’s IP Office has long faced criticism for lengthy backlogs, often stretching the trademark registration process to 18–24 months or more. The new timelines bring Vietnam closer to efficient systems. The fast-track option is particularly smart for high-value or urgent cases such as counterfeit threats on e-commerce platforms. However, careful preparation is mandatory for flawless applications from the start to maximize fast-track eligibility.
Read More
March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
Read More
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More