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​ 

July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More