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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More