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

November 27, 2017

New Protections for Sound Marks in Thailand: Music to IP Owners’ Ears

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The scope of Thailand’s intellectual property protections was recently widened, with the new definition of marks going beyond the visual elements of a mark to include those possessing auditory characteristics. This brings Thailand in line with scores of other jurisdictions that already allow trademark registration for sound marks.

The amended Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) was implemented on July 28, 2016, and now includes “sound” as a category of mark. Section 4, paragraph 1 of the Act now states that:

“‘mark’ means 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 …”

Following passage of the Act last year, Ministerial Regulation No. 5 B.E. 2560 (2017) was issued to enable the implementation of the Act, under which the Thai Department of Intellectual Property started accepting sound trademark registration applications on September 1, 2017.

Formality Requirements

Much of the information and documentation required when applying for sound mark registration is essentially the same as the requirements for filing visual trademarks, such as providing the applicant’s name and address, submitting a power of attorney (if the mark’s owner appoints a representative), and specifying the goods and/or services for which registration is sought.

The information required to identify sound marks is set out in clause 11 of the Ministerial Regulation as:

  1. a detailed written description of the sound, specifying whether the sound is categorized as a human sound, an animal sound, a piece of music/melody, or another type of sound; and
  2. an audio recording of the mark in a digital file format, such as MP3, saved on a storage device, such as a USB flash drive.

Applicants may choose to submit musical notations or a recording of their sound mark as part of their application. The Ministerial Regulation does not address the length of the recording, but it is recommended that it not be inordinately long. A reasonable guideline, based on the laws governing sound marks in other jurisdictions, is that it should be no longer than 30 seconds.

Substantive Examination

Section 7, paragraph 2 (11) of the Trademark Act provides the essential qualifications for a distinctive sound trademark. Under this section, for a sound mark to be sufficiently distinct:

  • it must not be directly descriptive of the nature or characteristics of the designated goods or services;
  • it must not be an inherent sound associated with the goods or services; and
  • it must not have been created by the usage or operation of the goods or services.

For instance, the sound of a working engine cannot be protected for automobiles or automobile parts; a human sound made to express that something tastes good (e.g, the sound “yummy”) cannot be protected for food or restaurants; and the sound of cutting something with a metal tool cannot be protected for knives or other cutting or shearing equipment.

Under section 7, paragraph 3, a sound mark applicant can prove distinctiveness through use by submitting documentary or audio materials demonstrating that the mark applied for has been widely sold, distributed, or advertised, according to the rules prescribed by the minister in related notifications.

In addition to possessing inherent distinctiveness, a sound mark must not be identical to another person’s registered trademark, whether it is filed for goods in the same class or in a different class (but where the goods are of the same nature), according to section 13 of the Act.

The Need to Protect Sound Marks

As consumers often recognize brands from what they see and hear, the protection of specialty sound trademarks is expected to become very popular. Securing sound marks associated with a brand, along with visual marks, increases the distinctiveness of that brand and assists consumers in easily distinguishing products from others on the market.

As of October 25, 2017, 13 sound mark applications have already been lodged with the Department of Intellectual Property—eight human sound marks and five melodies—since applications first started to be accepted on September 1. Eight of the applications were filed by foreign applicants and five were filed by Thai nationals. As more entrepreneurs and business owners become aware that they can protect the sounds associated with their businesses, this figure is expected to increase substantially.

The new regime means that sound mark holders are able to benefit from full protection under trademark law when taking legal action against third parties, provided that their sound mark is registered. The owners of such marks would be well advised to register their marks quickly to ensure that they avail themselves of this protection.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More