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 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More