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​ 

December 30, 2025
The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions. The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Why These Guidelines Matter Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields. Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples. Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts: Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions. Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination. The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells. Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More