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

May 16, 2012

Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Trademark License Registration Requirements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Similar to the trademark licensing practice in several countries, a trademark license agreement in Thailand must be registered with the Registrar at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). If two parties make an agreement but fail to register it, the licensing parties do not have the right to enforce the license agreement. Thus, the registration of a trademark license agreement is essential in Thailand.

However, because the Trademark Act does not define the term “trademark license,” the question often arises as to which types of agreements are considered to be trademark licenses that need to be registered. In other words, practitioners often ask whether agreements such as distributorship agreements, franchising agreements, or technology transfer agreements—each of which may have an element of trademark use—need to be registered with the DIP. A recent Supreme Court case has provided at least a partial response to this question.

Requirements Under the Thai Trademark Act

According to Section 68 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to other persons for any, or all, of the goods for which it is registered. However, such trademark license agreement must be registered with the DIP. Applications for registration of a trademark license agreement must be in accordance with the rules and procedures of Ministerial Regulation No. 1, which prescribes the required documents and lays out the process for filing applications.

Under current Thai law, a trademark license agreement must be undertaken in writing, and must at least identify:

  1. The conditions and terms of the agreement between a trademark proprietor and a person applying to be an authorized licensee, which enables the former to control the quality of the goods or services;
  2. The goods or services for which the licensed trademark is to be used; and
  3. A provision specifying that only an authorized licensee has the right to use the trademark, or that such proprietor shall authorize any person, in addition to the authorized licensee, to use it.

Failure to comply with the contract formality requirements would render the licensing agreement invalid.

Supreme Court Decision

A 2010 Supreme Court decision, Bangchak Petroleum Public Company Limited v. Sanpatong SR Petroleum Limited Partnership et al. (Dika case 10207/2553), has shed new light on the types of agreements to which these formality requirements apply.

Bangchak Petroleum, the plaintiff in this case, owned the registered mark BANGCHAK in Thailand, for use with petroleum fuel and petroleum products. Bangchak granted the rights to Sanpatong SR Petroleum and its managing partner, the defendants in this case, to operate a retail outlet, in the form of a gas station, to sell gasoline and petroleum products. Bangchak remained the proprietor of the land, building, all the construction located in the outlet, and all the equipment used to operate the gas station.

The defendants missed a payment for the delivered products, as well as a royalty fee, insurance premium, penalties for late payment, and damages for selling petroleum products from other sources in the gas station, amongst other requirements.

As a result, Bangchak filed a case with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to claim for damages totaling approximately THB 10 million (or approximately USD 330,000). The plaintiff also demanded that the defendants be removed from the properties and that such properties be returned to the plaintiff.

Sanpatong and its managing partner argued that the agreement they made with Bangchak was not enforceable because the license agreement at dispute was not registered with the DIP. In its decision, the IP&IT Court awarded debt receivable to Bangchak but held that the agreement between the parties, which contained a clause allowing the defendants to use the plaintiff ’s trademark, was invalid because the parties had failed to properly register the license agreement with the DIP.

Bangchak appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the agreement at dispute was not meant to be a trademark license agreement, as it merely granted Sanpatong the right to operate a retail unit (i.e., a gas station), while Bangchak was the proprietor of the land, construction, equipment, signboard, and trademark used within the gas station.

The Supreme Court agreed with Bangchak’s argument and reversed the IP&IT Court’s decision on the issue of trademark license agreement. The Court ruled that even if there was an element of use of the mark BANGCHAK with the products, the mark was in fact used by its owner. The defendants bought products from the plaintiff, and then sold such goods to the public. This was not a case in which the defendants sought to obtain their own supply source, and then used the plaintiff ’s trademark with the supplied products, with the plaintiff ’s authorization. Therefore, the agreement in this case was not a trademark license agreement that must be formally registered.

Analysis

Interpreting the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, it appears that if two parties have a transaction wherein one party only acts as a middleman to distribute or sell the other party’s products to consumers, such a transaction is not considered to be use of a trademark. Thus, it can be interpreted that a straightforward distributorship agreement should not be considered to be a trademark license agreement, and therefore is not required to be registered with the DIP.

Based on the specific facts of this case, it is worth noting that the plaintiff provided most of the equipment and property to the defendants, in order to operate the gas station. Furthermore, the defendants were not likely to have control of the marketing activities, nor did they produce any advertisements using or mentioning the plaintiff’s trademark, since these activities were undertaken by the trademark owner.

In this context, this Supreme Court decision provides important guidance on the circumstances under which an agreement needs to be registered, and it may prove helpful in settling some aspects of this long-running registration debate.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More