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

February 15, 2012

Supreme Court Finds “Bull” Marks Not to Be Confusingly Similar

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in December 2011. For further information, please visit www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

The Trademark Act (BE 2534 (AD 1991)), as amended by the Trademark Act (No 2) (BE 2543 (AD 2000)), provides that, in order to be registered, a trademark or service mark must not be identical, or similar, to an earlier registered trademark. Additionally, a trademark must not be identical, or similar, to a well-known mark, and cause public confusion as to the proprietor of the mark.

In TC Pharmaceutical Industrial Co Ltd v Bullsone Co Ltd (13889-13891/2553, December 30 2010, released on October 10 2011), the Supreme Court has examined the possibility of confusion between a trademark application and an earlier registered mark that is well known in Thailand.

TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd filed an opposition with the Department of Intellectual Property against three applications filed by Bullsone Co Ltd for the registration of the trademark BULLSPOWER for goods in Classes 1, 2, and 4 of the Nice Classification. TC Pharmaceutical claimed that Bullsone’s trademark was confusingly similar to its well-known mark RED BULL and related ‘bulls’ device, which are registered for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31, and 32. The trademark registrar found that BULLSPOWER was not confusingly similar to the RED BULL mark or the ‘bulls’ device. TC Pharmaceutical appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which agreed with the trademark registrar’s decision.

TC Pharmaceutical then filed a complaint with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) against Bullsone (as the first defendant) and the Board of Trademarks (as the second defendant). The suit claimed that the board’s decision was unlawful because the first defendant’s trademark was confusingly similar to TC Pharmaceutical’s trademarks. In particular, TC Pharmaceutical noted that the first defendant’s trademark contained the essential element ‘bull’, which was identical to the essential element of TC Pharmaceutical’s mark, and that the first defendant had disclaimed the exclusive right to use the word ‘power’. Therefore, the word ‘power’ was not an essential part of the first defendant’s mark.

The IP&IT Court disagreed with TC Pharmaceutical’s arguments and decided that the mark BULLSPOWER was not similar to any of the plaintiff’s marks. The IP&IT Court thus dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the IP&IT Court’s decision. According to the Supreme Court, in considering the similarities between the marks, it is necessary to consider the overall appearance of the marks, rather than focusing only on certain elements.

The Supreme Court agreed with TC Pharmaceutical’s premise that the first defendant had disclaimed the exclusive right to use the word ‘power’ and that both marks shared the common word ‘bull’. However, the court held that the marks belonging to TC Pharmaceutical were RED BULL (or RED BULL and ‘bulls’ device), and that the goods covered by the parties’ marks were different. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the first defendant’s mark was not confusingly similar to TC Pharmaceutical’s marks and, therefore, would not cause confusion among consumers.

The Supreme Court clearly made its decision on the likelihood of confusion by focusing on the appearance of the marks, their pronunciation, and the goods covered by each mark. The court did not give special consideration to the earlier mark’s well-known status.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More