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

March 15, 2016

Recognition of Well-Known Marks in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

After Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) recently announced that it would abolish the recordation system for well-known trademarks, many questions about the status of well-known marks remained unanswered. This article will discuss whether well-known marks are still protected in Thailand, who has authority to determine whether a mark is well known, and whether a similar recordation system will be reestablished in the future.

Abolishment of Well-Known Marks Recordation System

The Notification of Cancellation of Rules of the Department of Intellectual Property Regarding Recordation of Well-Known Marks B.E. 2548 (2005), issued on September 9, 2015, stated that the DIP’s recordation system for well-known trademarks was abolished because the Board of Trademarks already has criteria to determine whether a mark is well known. For the sake of harmonization, the DIP cancelled its recordation system.

Protection of Well-Known Marks

As Thailand is a member of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, protection of well-known marks still exists in Thailand despite the recordation system being abolished. Under Section 8(10) of the Trademark Act, a mark which is identical or very similar to a well-known mark to the extent that it may cause confusion among the public as to the owner or origin of the goods is not registrable.

According to the Ministerial Notification regarding Rules on Determination of Well-Known Marks, dated September 21, 2004 (Ministerial Notification)—which is applicable to all government organizations, from the DIP to the Supreme Court—the following criteria should be used to determine whether a mark is well known:

  • The mark has been used on goods or services by way of distribution, or has been used, advertised, or used by other means in the usual manner and in good faith;
  • The mark has been widely used, whether in Thailand or abroad, in the usual manner and in good faith to the extent that it is well known among the general public or those in the relevant industry in Thailand;
  • The mark has been used to the extent that its reputation for quality is generally accepted among consumers; and
  • Such use is done whether by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative or licensee, and whether locally or abroad.

Current System

In the absence of the previously existing recordation system, the following authorities can now determine whether a mark is well known:

Trademark Registrars.  At the examination stage, trademark registrars have a duty to reject the registration of a mark which is identical or similar to a well-known mark and may cause confusion among the general public as to the owner or origin of the goods.

Board of Trademarks.  The Board of Trademarks, which acts as an appeal authority for decisions of the registrars, still has the authority to decide whether a mark is well known. If a case is appealed to the Board of Trademarks, the applicant or opposer may argue that its mark is well known. The Board of Trademarks will then make a decision on the well-known status of the mark in accordance with the Ministerial Notification, taking into account factors such as acknowledgement of the public in Thailand; the amount of sales or revenue generated by the mark; the market share of the applicant’s business; and so on.

The applicant or opposer should submit evidence in support of these factors, such as magazines, product samples, invoices, bills of lading, advertisements, trademark registration certificates, awards, judgments with favorable decisions, etc. In Thailand’s civil law system, however, court judgments are merely persuasive and do not hold binding precedence.

Courts.  The Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) and the Supreme Court can also make decisions on the well-known status of marks based on the Ministerial Notification. According to Supreme Court Decision No. 6113/2555, recordation is not mandatory. The fact that the opposer did not file a recordation was not a significant reason to decide that the mark was not well-known. It was determined that all facts must be considered in accordance with the Ministerial Notification, such as evidence proving the well-known status of the mark.

There is currently no indication that a recordation system for well-known marks will be re-established in the future. A single committee which is authorized to make a binding decision on whether a mark is well known would be welcomed, because multiple authorities issuing nonbinding decisions can be burdensome to trademark owners, who need to prove their mark’s well-known status at every different stage and in every similar case. In the future, if a system to record well-known marks is established which binds all relevant government authorities, owners of well-known trademarks will benefit tremendously because it will reduce costs and time to prove that a mark is well known.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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