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 25, 2014

Supreme Court Orders Registration of “Polo” Mark Despite Existence of Earlier “Polo” Marks

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

In Young Sangyo Co Ltd v Department of Intellectual Property (November 25, 2013), the Supreme Court has overturned a decision of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) in which the latter had found the figurative trademark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB was confusingly similar to the earlier figurative trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB.

Plaintiff Young Sangyo Co Ltd filed an application for the registration of the trademark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB (and polo player device) with the Department of Intellectual Property of Thailand for goods in several classes, including Classes 9 and 28 of the Nice Classification (Application Nos 595158 and 595162).

The registrar rejected the application under Section 13 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the trademark was identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others, namely:

  • The trademark RLX POLO SPORT (and device) (Registration No TM102221) for goods in Class 9:
  • The trademark POLO (and device) (Registration No TM184935) for goods in Class 18:
  • The trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB (and device) (Registration No TM193574) for goods in Class 9:
  • The trademark POLO WORLD (and device) (Registration No TM174819) for goods in Class 9:

The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks. The board confirmed the registrar’s order, finding that the plaintiff’s trademark was identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others to the extent that it might cause public confusion as to the proprietorship or origin of the goods.

The plaintiff argued that the registrar’s order and the Board of Trademarks’ decision were unlawful, as its trademark was not identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others to the extent that it could cause confusion among the public. The plaintiff filed a civil suit with the IP&IT Court, requesting that the court withdraw the registrar’s order and the board’s decision and order the Department of Intellectual Property to proceed with registration of the mark.

The IP&IT Court dismissed the case, considering that the mark applied for was confusingly similar to the registered trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB of the Santa Barbara Polo & Racquet Club. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

On November 25, 2013, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment. The court stated that, due to its appearance and pronunciation, the plaintiff’s trademark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB was clearly different from the registered trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB, as well as the other cited trademarks. The court also considered that, although the marks both included the word “polo,” this did not preclude the plaintiff from using that word as part of its trademark, given that its overall appearance and pronunciation was not confusingly similar. In addition, as the plaintiff had disclaimed the words “Beverly Hills” and “club,” it had no exclusive rights over those words. Finally, the plaintiff had successfully proven that it had used and advertised the mark in numerous countries without any confusion since 2001.

The Supreme Court thus overturned the IP&IT Court’s judgment and dismissed the Board of Trademarks’ decision. It ordered the Department of Intellectual Property to proceed with registration of the plaintiff’s trademark in Class 9 and Class 28.

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