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 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More