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 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More