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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation