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 4, 2019

Provisional Refusals of Madrid System Trademark Registrations in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

WIPO’s Madrid System, which provides an alternative to filing trademark applications through the traditional national route, has been an option for global brand owners seeking trademark protection in Thailand since November 7, 2017. As of October 2019, more than 15,000 international registrations (IRs) designating Thailand have been filed and processed at the International Bureau, which suggests a positive reception of the system by brand owners. Against this background, and now over 18 months from the date of joining Madrid (18 months being the statutory period within which the national trademark office needs to issue its provisional refusal), the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has recently started to issue provisional refusals for IR applications designating Thailand. It is now a good time to point out several practical points that trademark owners should be aware of before deciding whether to seek protection in Thailand through the traditional national route or the Madrid route.

Incongruent Schedules and Conflicting Priority Rights

Every IR designating Thailand is to be allotted a local Thai application number, in addition to its IR number, after the DIP receives the application from WIPO and translates the name of the applicant. This local application number would follow with a 9-digit number, as with a national route application, that will act as a reference number when corresponding with the DIP, regardless of whether a provisional refusal is issued for the application. Brand owners therefore need to make sure to docket the local application and registration number in their portfolio management, maintenance, and enforcement.

It typically takes three to four months from the date of filing at the office of origin before an IR is published in the WIPO Gazette, making it disclosable via an online database, as well as various designated Trademark Office databases. In the case of Thailand, an IR designating Thailand will become searchable after the local application number is allotted. Although the DIP will try to allocate a corresponding local application number as soon as possible, this may take them several weeks, if not a few months. Thus, there could be a legal complication if two identical or confusingly similar marks are filed under different systems but with a close filing or priority date, whereby the one filed through the Madrid System has the prior right. There is a clear risk that by the time an examination is conducted against a national route application, which generally progresses faster than an IR, information on a particular IR may not be readily available. The registrar might then allow the national route application to go through and will only later find out that the IR actually has the prior right (even though the IR becomes available in the local database later). Such a risk is not hypothetical, and we have already seen at least one case involving this unfortunate situation. 

This type of occurrence signals to brand owners and their counsel that extreme caution should also be exercised to include the databases from both routes when conducting pre-filing availability searches.

List of Goods and Certificate of Registration    

As with a few other jurisdictions, the DIP will translate the goods and services under an application from English into the local language (in this case, Thai) for examination purposes. The registrar conducts a formal examination focusing on the clarity of the list of goods and services based on the Thai translation. If a provisional refusal is issued, it would provide an opportunity for the brand owner to, through its Thai counsel, review the descriptions again and make sure that the descriptions correspond to the applicant’s intention.

It is important for brand owners to ascertain whether the Thai translation corresponds to its expected scope of protection, as the translations will be docketed in the Trademark Office database. To date, no Certificate of Registration for an IR designating Thailand has been issued. Based on our discussion with the DIP, the Certificate of Registration for IR designating Thailand is to be issued in English, but in the event of an enforcement procedure, a corresponding Thai translation of the list of goods or services certified by the DIP is likely to be required by the relevant authorities. Thus, even a slight discrepancy in a Thai translation could negatively impair the trademark owner’s rights to enforce its registered trademark in Thailand.

Multiple-Class Applications  

While there is no difference in the examination of multiple-class applications made through either the Madrid or national route, a majority of IRs designating Thailand include several classes in one application. This leads to a very important practical perspective in that the DIP considers the whole application in its entirety, and a divisional application is not available in Thailand.

Under the current practice, the examiner does not indicate a specific class when they issue a refusal or impose a certain limitation, such as a disclaimer. Thus, in the case of refusal, the applicant needs to file an appeal covering all of the classes and, if a disclaimer is imposed, it would similarly be applicable to all classes. In addition, based on the latest regulations of the Board of Trademarks issued in March 2019, if one or more classes under a multiple-class application is appealed and is not successful, the whole application will be rejected, because a divisional application is not available under the current system.

Global System, Local Implementation

It appears evident from the above discussion that the Madrid System is a very attractive alternative for brand owners seeking trademark protection in Thailand. However, as with other jurisdictions, the system itself allows for local rules and regulations to be applied. This requires careful navigation by local counsel to optimize a brand owner’s legal protection and to maximize efficient portfolio management.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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 on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More