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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More