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

August 29, 2018

Letter Marks in Thailand: Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Distinctiveness

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Many business owners wish to protect trademarks or service marks in Thailand in the form of abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, or letters that are not generally used words or that cannot be pronounced. Thai Trademark Registrars and the Board of Trademarks take a conservative view of the distinctiveness of such marks, which is not always echoed by the courts. Brand owners therefore need to strategically consider how such marks are treated to determine whether their letter marks  are sufficiently distinctive to be registrable.

According to section 4 of the current Thai Trademark Act, a mark can be a “photograph, drawing, device, brand, name, word, text, letter, numeral, signature, combination of colors, figure or shape of an object, sound, or any combination thereof.”

Section 7 of the Trademark Act then sets out the criteria for trademark distinctiveness, stating that “a distinctive trademark is a trademark that enables the public or users of the goods under said trademark to know and understand that such goods are different from other goods. A trademark containing or consisting of one or more of the following as an essential element shall be deemed distinctive: … (4) An invented letter or numeral.”

According to the Department of Intellectual Property’s Guidelines on the Examination of Trademarks, an invented letter means any letter of any language that is represented in any of the following manners: (1) interconnected letters; (2) a letter (or letters) with depth; (3) a letter (or letters) with an inside pattern; and (4) a letter (or letters) with shadowing/shading. In interpreting these guidelines, the Registrar and the Board of Trademarks usually reject marks of three or four letters that do not form words or that cannot be pronounced, if they are not presented in stylized form. This leaves brand owners to question what threshold of stylization is sufficient in order to achieve distinctiveness.

A lot of letter mark applications are rejected by the Trademark Registrar and the Board of Trademarks on the grounds of lack of distinctiveness, most of which are then abandoned by the applicants. However, some applicants choose to pursue the registration of their marks after rejection, with some examples including:

After being rejected for lack of distinctiveness, the applicants for the above marks brought their cases before the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), and then ultimately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued similar opinions in all three contested cases, finding that the unusual combination of three letters in each of the marks, even if not presented in a stylized manner, rendered each of the marks sufficiently distinctive and registrable.       

Despite the Supreme Court’s positive reasoning in these cases, the Trademark Registrar maintains a strict interpretation regarding the distinctiveness of non-stylized letter marks. In 2013, the Trademark Registrar denied the registration of the trademark . The owner of this mark chose to challenge this rejection in the IP&IT Court and the Supreme Court, as Supreme Court Case No. 862/2561.

The Supreme Court decided again to confirm the registrability of the unusual combination of letters. Its decision, handed down in May 2018, affirmed the decision of the IP&IT Court to reverse the decisions of the Registrar and the Board of Trademarks, which had previously rejected an application to register the mark in International Classes 7 and 9.    

The Registrar, with whom the Board of Trademarks agreed, found that the mark was nondistinctive because the letters “B,” “F,” and “t” were letters of normal appearance that were not presented in a stylized manner.   

Striking down that decision, the Supreme Court considered the mark to be comprised of three letters, “B”, “F,” and “t,” which do not form a specific word with any particular meaning, appearing on a red background, which helps to make these Roman letters more distinguishable and outstanding from normal non-stylized Roman letters. The court reasoned that this makes it easier for consumers to recognize and distinguish this applicant’s mark from other marks, and therefore deemed the mark sufficiently distinctive to be registrable under the Trademark Act.   

We can infer from this that Roman letters that are not assembled as words, cannot be pronounced, and are not presented in sufficiently stylized forms, are still not acceptable to the Trademark Registrar and the Board of Trademarks in Thailand. A business that wishes to apply for an initialism or a three-letter (or more) trademark of its company name, using only letters, might have to plan strategically, well in advance, to successfully apply for this type of trademark. If a brand owner wishes to avoid rejection based on nondistinctiveness during the examination stage, it should design a mark that is sufficiently stylized. This appears to be the best option for brand owners seeking a better-than-average chance of registering their letter marks without having to appeal to the courts. However, if an owner wishes to register this type of mark in a non-stylized form, the courts are more open-minded, and the well-informed owner can prepare to appeal any refusals before they occur.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More