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​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More