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

February 26, 2018

Sound Marks in Thailand: Understanding the Registration Requirements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Registration of sound marks has been possible in Thailand since September 1, 2017, based on amendments to the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) and the issuance of Ministerial Regulation No. 5 B.E. 2560 (2017). Tilleke & Gibbins was pleased to be the first law firm to file a sound mark application in Thailand, and, as of January 12, 2018, 12 sound mark applications have been filed at the Thai Department of Intellectual Property for several types of products, including sanitary napkins, baby diapers, clothing, food, medicine, technology gadgets, business administration services, vehicles, and games and toys.

In this article, we provide an overview of the registration process and important guidelines that brand owners should consider in seeking protection of their sound marks.

Eligibility for Registration

Similar to other types of trademarks, a sound mark will be eligible for registration if it fulfills three requirements: distinctiveness, not being prohibited by law, and not being identical or confusingly similar to a registered or pending-for-examination mark.

However, in addition to these three requirements, the law has narrowed the interpretation of distinctiveness for a sound mark to avoid any adverse effects on the commercial competition environment, by requiring that a sound must not be:

  • A sound that is directly descriptive of the characteristics of the relevant goods or services. Examples of descriptive marks could include the sound of cows mooing when used in relation to milk, the sound of a dog barking when used in relation to pet products, or the sound of cheering and clapping when used in relation to competitions.
  • A natural sound associated with the relevant goods or services. Associated sounds could include the sound of ducks when used in relation to products made from duck, or the sound of cutting something with a metal tool when used in relation to knives or other cutting or shearing equipment.
  • A sound produced by the operation of specific goods or services. For example, an applicant would not be able to register the sound of a toilet flushing when used in relation to sanitary products, the sound of a camera shutter when used in relation to cameras, or the siren of an ambulance when used in relation to ambulance transportation and rescue transportation services.

It is important to note that the sound mark for which registration is sought should not be longer than 30 seconds; otherwise, it is possible that the mark may be deemed as lacking distinctiveness and incapable of functioning as a trademark.

Application Requirements

When filing a sound mark application, the law requires that the applicant include a clear description of the sound in the application for the sound mark and provide a flash drive containing an audio file of the sound mark in MP3 format. In the description space of the application, the applicant must indicate: (1) the type of sound mark (whether it is a human sound, animal sound, music/melodic sound, or other type of sound); (2) the context in which the mark will be used; and (3) the closest Thai syllabic expression of the melody, if possible.

For example, if a television broadcasting company would like to file an application for its theme song, the applicant can indicate that the type of sound is a “bell sound,” the context is “the starting sound of the ‘ABC’ television program,” and the closest syllabic expression of the sound is “ding, ding, ding.”

Moreover, the applicant may also include the sound’s description as a musical notation, a sonograph, a spectrogram, or other forms of transcription to illustrate the proposed sound in section 4 of the application, added separately as a continuation sheet. For example, an applicant could write, “the trademark is a sound mark consisting of five consecutive notes, namely ABCED,” as shown in the musical notation below:
 
    

    
Another example would be, “the mark consists of the spoken words HI SA MI TSU superimposed over musical sounds in the key of D major, namely, the melody notes, E, A, E, and two F-sharp notes.”

   
    
If a sound mark has been widely used or registered in a jurisdiction, it is advisable to submit evidence of use in the form of an MP3 file, a video file, or a certificate of registration, at the time of filing of the sound mark application to improve the chances of successful registration and defend against any possible opposition.

Considerations

As music can be protected under Thai copyright law, in the case where a sound mark contains a piece of copyrighted music, it is recommended that the applicant obtain a license for use of the copyrighted work as a sound mark, or an assignment from the copyright owner, in order to avoid the potential risk of copyright infringement. Additionally, for the sake of clarity, it is advisable to indicate in the application the identity of the author of the particular copyrighted musical work used in the new sound mark, and briefly explain how the applicant obtained the right to use the copyright (i.e., through licensing or assignment).

Another issue for sound mark applicants arises when a sound mark contains words that are identical or confusingly similar to prior registered or pending-for-examination marks in the same class or relevant classes. If that is the case, there is the possibility that the registrar may refuse registration of the mark based on its similarity to an earlier word mark, despite the fact that they are different types of marks. Therefore, before proceeding with the filing of a sound mark, it is advisable to conduct a trademark search, not only for similar sound marks, but also for comparable word marks.

Brand owners should be sure to account for all of these considerations in their sound mark application, so that they can successfully protect those sounds that are recognizable identifiers of their business.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More