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

November 27, 2012

Supreme Court Considers Issues Surrounding Concurrent Use Registrations

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in September 2012. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Trademark owners, even when they are acting in good faith, may face difficulties in obtaining a trademark registration if the mark they seek to register is confusingly similar, or identical, to an earlier registration. Section 27 of the Thai Trademark Act provides the opportunity to overcome this objection by allowing “concurrent use” registrations if the trademark at issue has been honestly and concurrently used by the applicant or if there are other special circumstances.

In particular, Paragraph 1 of Section 27 provides as follows:

“When there is an application for registration of a trademark that is identical, or similar, to one already registered by a different owner in accordance with Section 13, or when there are applications for registration of trademarks that are identical or similar under Section 20 in respect of goods of the same or different classes, but, in the registrar’s opinion, of the same character, and the registrar deems that the trademarks have been honestly and concurrently used by each proprietor, or there are other special circumstances which are deemed proper by the registrar to allow registration, the registrar may permit the registration of the same trademark or of nearly identical trademarks by more than one proprietor, subject to conditions and limitations as to the method and place of use, or other conditions and limitations as the registrar may deem proper to impose. The registrar shall, without delay, notify in writing the applicants or the proprietors of the trademarks who have been granted registration of his decision and reasons therefor.”

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Anna Sui Corp v Department of Intellectual Property (11439/2554) is a good example of the issues involved in concurrent use registrations in Thailand. In this case, plaintiff Anna Sui Corp filed three applications for the registration of the word mark ANNA SUI for goods in Class 25 of the Nice Classification. After reviewing the applications, the trademark registrar decided that the mark ANNA SUI in Class 25 was confusingly similar to the earlier registered mark ANNA IS, which also covered goods in Class 25.

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Board of Trademarks, but the registrar’s decision was upheld. The plaintiff then filed a complaint with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court, claiming that the ANNA SUI mark had been widely used for a long period of time and was well known. In addition, the plaintiff stated that it had applied for registration of the mark in good faith. The IP&IT Court agreed with the registrar and the Board of Trademarks, and confirmed that the mark ANNA SUI was not registrable.

Anna Sui appealed to the Supreme Court. The court first found that the trademark applications for ANNA SUI were confusingly similar to the earlier registered trademark ANNA IS because the marks contained the substantial element “Anna” and covered the same type of goods.

Nevertheless, after considering the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the Supreme Court noted that the mark ANNA SUI had been registered in the United States since 1983, and that the products sold under the ANNA SUI mark had been widely distributed and promoted in many countries, including Thailand, over a long period of time. In addition, Anna Sui is the name of an American fashion designer. The Supreme Court was thus convinced that the mark ANNA SUI had been created without copying the marks of any other parties, and that it had been used in good faith before the earlier trademark had been filed in Thailand.

The Supreme Court thus concluded that the three trademark applications for ANNA SUI were registrable; however, registration would be subject to any conditions and limitations that the registrar might deem proper to impose.

The Supreme Court’s decision shows that, in order to obtain registration of a mark under Section 27, it is necessary to prove the good faith of the applicant. Convincing evidence of the applicant’s good faith includes evidence of use of the mark in Thailand and overseas, as well as evidence of registration of the mark in other countries. In addition, evidence of the origin of the mark, as shown in this case, could be very helpful to demonstrate the good faith of the applicant.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
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