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​ 

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