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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More