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 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 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More