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​ 

August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More