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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More