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

June 6, 2016

Replacing Thailand’s System to Record Well-Known Marks

Subscribe to Updates
World Intellectual Property Report (Bloomberg BNA)

Changes to how Thailand handles well-known marks mean that rights holders will have to change their strategies and best practices to protect their marks.

In Thailand, protection over a trademark is usually granted once a trademark is registered. A registrar will not grant the registration of a mark that is identical or similar to a prior-registered trademark, as it may lead to confusion among the public as to the owner or origin of the goods.

Thailand protects well-known marks under Section 8(10) of the Trademark Act, consistent with the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. Section 8(10) states that ‘‘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.’’

Cross-class protection is available for well-known marks— they are protected even if the trademark has not been registered in the same class or a relevant class as the offending application. Well-known status can be especially important for foreign brand owners in Thailand, because it is not uncommon for third parties to try to register these well-known marks in unrelated classes, in an attempt to take advantage of the brand’s considerable goodwill.

The Recordation System.

Thailand previously had a recordation system for well-known marks which was set up by the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). A trademark owner could submit documents to the DIP to prove the well-known status and obtain official recognition of a mark.

However, on September 9, 2015, the DIP announced that it would abolish the recordation system. Subsequently, trademark owners who had filed or were going to file an application to record a well-known mark were stopped in their tracks. Now, these trademark owners are waiting for the DIP to clarify how their well-known marks will be protected in Thailand.

Why Was the Well-Known Marks Recordation System Abolished?

Thailand’s recordation system for well-known marks was established by a set of rules issued under the National Government Organization Act. Thailand’s Trademark Act, however, does not provide for a well-known marks recordation system. The rules also do not identify which authority must comply or acknowledge the recordation system.

In addition, trademark registrars, the Board of Trademarks, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), and the Supreme Court have the authority to subjectively determine whether or not a mark is well known under Thai law.

Ideally, all of these authorities should arrive at the same decision. In practice, however, this often does not happen due to the varying perspectives of each authority. Therefore, it is possible for a trademark registrar to deem that a mark is well known, yet the Board of Trademarks may determine that the same mark is not well known.

When the recordation system for well-known marks still existed, there was also a unique committee named the Board of Well-Known Marks, comprised mainly of trademark registrars who determined whether or not a mark was well known. Last year, the DIP issued a notification abolishing its recordation system for well-known trademarks to avoid potentially conflicting decisions.

Are Well-Known Marks Still Protected in Thailand?

As Thailand is a member of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, protection for well-known marks still exists despite the recordation system being abolished. Under Section 8(10) of the Trademark Act, a mark that 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—cannot be accepted for registration.

This provision is applicable to all government organizations, from the DIP to the Supreme Court. It sets out criteria to determine whether or not a mark is well known, broadly prescribing that a well-known mark should:

  • Have 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;
  • Have 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; and
  • Have been used to the extent that its reputation for quality is generally accepted among consumers.

In addition, the use of the mark as described above must be done by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative or licensee, either locally or abroad.

Does the DIP Plan to Replace the Recordation System?

In moving forward and evaluating the drawbacks under the former system to record well-known marks, the DIP is planning to develop a system that harmonizes the decisions surrounding whether a mark is well known. This would provide an important economic benefit to trademark owners, as they currently have to submit an enormous amount of evidence to prove that their marks are well known every time they apply for a new trademark.

A new system does not mean that the DIP will reestablish the recordation system or a new committee that is authorized to make a binding decision on whether a mark is well known. Instead of a centralized authority, the DIP is planning to establish an internal system to collect all decisions from the Board of Trademarks, the IP&IT Court, and the Supreme Court on whether a mark is well known.

This will help trademark registrars check whether any decision from the Board of Trademarks, the IP&IT Court, or the Supreme Court has been made regarding the well-known status of a mark. If a precedential decision has been made determining that a mark is well known, the trademark registrars will follow this decision for the sake of harmonization.

In addition, the DIP is planning to issue a new Ministerial Notification to empower trademark registrars to make a decision by taking precedent decisions of the Board of Trademarks, the IP&IT Court, and the Supreme Court into account. This would not only facilitate determining whether or not a mark is well known, but it would also help trademark owners as they would not need to repeatedly prove the well-known status of their marks.

When Will This New System Come Into Effect?

At present, this internal system is only a plan, and it needs to be further discussed to refine the procedures. One potential drawback of this system is that precedential decisions may become outdated. These decisions should only serve as guidance of what trademark owners have proved in the past, and ideally, the Ministerial Notification should specify how far back trademark registrars should take precedential decisions into consideration.

What Actions Should Trademark Owners Take?

While waiting for the new system to be introduced, there are still actions that trademark owners can take to ensure that their rights are fully protected. The key action is for trademark owners to collect evidence in support of the well-known status of their marks. This evidence can be used to obtain favorable decisions from the Board of Trademarks, the IP&IT Court, or the Supreme Court regarding the well-known status of their marks. These decisions will be beneficial now and in the future when the new recordation system is established.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More