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​ 

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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More