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

December 3, 2014

Preventing Distributor Trademark Infringement

Informed Counsel

In Thailand, one of the most prevalent forms of indirect investment engaged in by foreign entities is the distributorship appointment. Through local distributors, investors can indirectly reap the benefits from the sale of their products and services without having to invest in a permanent establishment.

Affixed to such products and services are trademarks, service marks, trade names, and goodwill. It is often the case, however, that intellectual property owners avoid the simple act of registering their trademarks and drawing up a proper distributorship agreement with clear provisions on intellectual property rights. Little do they know that once the cooperative and fruitful business deal that they have with their distributor comes to an end, their failure to protect their trademark can expose their valuable intellectual property rights to the risk of infringement, committed by none other than their former distributor.

In our experience dealing with matters involving trademark infringement litigation, often, the situation entails a trademark owner bringing a case against its former distributor, with the issue at hand revolving around the distributor’s allegedly unauthorized use of a trademark and/or trade name. Commonly, such unauthorized use materializes at the end of a distributorship, with the trademark owner discovering that its former distributor has imitated its trademark and perhaps applied for registration of the mark—sometimes, even before the expiration of the distributorship agreement. We have also seen cases in which a distributor began to use the owner’s trade name as part of its company name and domain name after the term of the distributorship.

This does not, however, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the trademark owner has forever lost its rights to the trademark and trade name. In fact, under the Trademark Act, the true owner of a trademark has the right to file with the competent court a cancellation action against the imitating trademark on grounds of better right. Also, under the Civil and Commercial Code, a trademark owner can obtain a court order prohibiting the former distributor from using the trade name as part of its company name and Internet domain name. However, considering that pursuing litigation is at least 20 times more costly than filing a simple trademark application, litigation may last for almost half a decade, and there may be a significant loss of business opportunity, litigation is, by no means, a preferable course of action. 

In order to avoid a situation in which litigation becomes inevitable, two simple, but effective steps should be taken before the conclusion of the distributorship deal. First, a trademark owner must apply for registration for all of its trademarks or service marks that subsist in the distributed products or services in the territory where the distributorship will be appointed. This will significantly benefit the owner in two ways:

  1. The distributor will be blocked from registering a trademark which is confusingly similar to the owner’s trademarks; and
  2. The owner will be able to enforce its trademark rights against any infringement committed by the distributor in a straightforward and less troublesome manner, with the registered trademarks acting as the basis for its legal rights.

Second, a trademark owner must prepare a well-drafted distributorship agreement that includes comprehensive clauses on the ownership of the intellectual property subsisting in the products or services, the distributor’s right to use such intellectual property, and the limitations of such rights during the term and after the expiration of the distributorship agreement. It is common for the owner to allow its distributor to use its trade name as part of the distributor’s company name and domain name. In such an event, however, the owner must not fail to include in the agreement the limitations on such use or the specific requirements for the cessation of use of the company name and domain name after the expiration of the agreement. These clauses will allow the owner to enforce its rights more easily, should the distributor attempt to continue using the trademark and trade name without approval from the owner.

Taking into account the undeniable possibility that a former distributor may infringe upon the rights of a trademark owner’s trademark and trade name, and how the simple acts of trademark registration and preparing a well-drafted intellectual property clause can save the trademark owner from the financial burden of litigation, it is clear that these preventative measures are an absolute necessity for trademark owners when preparing to expand business through means of a distributorship.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction