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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More