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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More